SURESH KUMAR MOHARANA Vs. BRUNDABAN BARIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals have been heard together and will be disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) On 20-2-1079 while a truck loaded with boulders was coming from Naulpur towards Chandikhole, it met with an accident on the public road. Four labourers who were travelling by the truck sustained injuries as a result of the accident. They filed four separate claim petitions under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which were registered as Misc. Cases Nos. 41, 42, 43 and 44 of 1979. After the claim petitions were admitted, notices were issued to the owner and the insurer of the vehicle. The owner did not enter contest. The Insurance Company filed its written statement and issues were settled. Misc. Case No. 44 of 1979 was posted to 22-3-1980 while the other three Misc. Cases were posted to 5-3-1980 for hearing. On 5-3-1980 the Insurance Company filed a petition for adjournment of Misc. Cases Nos. 41, 42 & 43 of 1979 to 22-31980 for analogous hearing of all the four cases as they arose out of one and the same accident. The Tribunal rejected the prayer and dismissed the claim petitions in Misc. Cases Nos. 41, 42 & 43 of 1979 for default as the claimants were not ready with the hearing. Aggrieved by this order, the claimants have preferred three separate appeals under Section 110D of the Act.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company raised a preliminary objection that no appeal lies against the order dismissing the claim petitions for default. His contention is that the provisions of Section 110-D confer a right of appeal only against an award of the Claims Tribunal and if there is no award no appeal can lie. Counsel for the petitioner has, on the other hand, contended that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and is non-existent in the eye of law. The argument is that after the issues are framed the Tribunal must hold an inquiry into the claim and there is no scope for dismissing the claim petition for default.