- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant (described hereinafter as 'the Insurance Company'). The controversy lies within a very narrow compass.
(3.) The respondents were travelling in the Trolly attached to a Tractor as labourers. They claimed to have suffered injuries because the Tractor with the Trolly in each case met with an accident. Petitions claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') were filed along with application under Section 140 of the Act. Order was passed by the learned Additional District Judge and Ex-officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur (in short 'the MACT') on the principle of no fault liability. The Insurance Company took the stand that it had no liability in respect of the persons travelling in the Trolly and the owner of the Tractor is liable to pay compensation. This plea was rejected by the MACT. Appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Act in each case was preferred before the High Court. Learned Single Judge, prima-facie, was of the view that the appeal was not maintainable. Nevertheless, he referred the matter to the Division Bench, which, it appears referred it to a Full Bench. While the matter was pending consideration by the Full Bench, execution proceedings were filed. Therefore, writ petitions were filed before the High Court. The High Court, by the impugned order in each case, dismissed the writ petitions holding that though arguable questions were involved, the writ petitions did not deserve consideration.;