ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. MISRO DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though this appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the appellant seeks to quash the award dated 4.5.1992 by which the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,20,000 to the claimants.

(2.) Mr. Rathore appearing for the appellant has strenuously contended that out of the accident more than one claim petitions were filed in the instant case and the learned Tribunal has committed grave error in not deciding all the claim petitions together, thereby causing prejudice to the appellant and, therefore, the impugned award is liable to be quashed only on this ground. In support of his argument, learned Counsel has relied upon K.R. Visalakshi and Anr. Vs. Pookodan Hamza and Ors., I (1989) ACC 30 (DB) : 1989 ACJ 600 : 1989 (1) TAC 64 wherein the Division Bench of Kerala High Court held that Tribunal should have considered all the claim petitions together arising out of same accident.

(3.) I have given an anxious consideration to the above argument and gone through the case law cited at the bar. In the case relied upon by the learned Counsel, several claim petitions were filed. The Division Bench of the High Court observed that Tribunal should have considered all the claim petitions together. The Division Bench further observed that in that case, possibly, the Tribunal would have entered the same finding in all the claim petitions and that being so, the Division Bench did not consider it appropriate to remit all the applications to the Tribunal for a joint trial. In this view of the matter, the case relied upon by the learned Counsel is of no help to the appellant. However in the case at hand, on being confronted, learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to state as to what prejudice has been caused to the appellant by not deciding all the claim petitions arising out of the same accident, together. Further the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal while deciding the instant claim petition has not been challenged.