- (1.) RAN Vijai Singh, J. These two appeals directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in brief the tribunal) give rise to an interesting questions of law, whether the statutory order under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in brief the Act) can be deemed to have been passed; whether the order passed by the tribunal rejecting an application under section 170 can be challenged in an appeal under section 173 (1); whether the order passed by the tribunal permitting the insurance company to cross- examine the claimant's witness in absence of the owner satisfies the requirements of law as provided in section 170 of the Act?
(2.) THE brief facts are that on 24. 1. 2005 Shiv Shankar Mishra along with Dilip Kumar Pandey was going to his residence, driving Motor Cycle No. UP-65/v-6821. THE bus no. UP-42/t-2889 collided with motor cycle. Due to injuries received in the accident Shiv Shanker Mishra died on the spot. THE pillion rider Dilip Kumar Pandey was also seriously injured and he died at the hospital. THE bus belonged to U. P. State Road Transport Corporation. It was insured by the appellant. The legal representatives of Dilip Kumar Pandey filed M. A. C. P. No. 44 of 2005 claiming Rs. 20 lacs as compensation under section 166 of the Act. The appellant filed an application under section 170 of the Act which was rejected on 7. 4. 2007 by the tribunal. The claim petition was allowed by the tribunal and compensation of Rs. 2, 11, 000/- was awarded to the claimants. The award of the tribunal dated 27. 9. 2008 has been challenged by the appellant in F. A. F. O. no. 3775 of 2005. The legal representatives of Shiv Shankar Mishra filed M. A. C. P. No. 45 of 2005 claiming Rs. 25 lacs as compensation under section 166 of the Act. The appellant filed an application under section 170 of the Act on which an order was passed on 19. 9. 2007 permitting the appellant to cross-examine the witness produced by the claimants PW-1, as the owner was not present. The claim petition was allowed by the tribunal and compensation of Rs. 2, 23, 000/- was awarded to the claimants. The award of the tribunal dated 17. 10. 2008 has been challenged by the appellant in F. A. F. O. no. 3776 of 2005.
(3.) IN both the claim petitions identical evidence was led and almost identical findings were recorded. The tribunal held that motor cyclist was not negligent and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The driving licence of its bus driver Jagarnath was valid. The claim petition was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The bus was not being driven in breach of insurance policy, and the claimants were entitled to compensation from the appellants. Both the claim petitions have been allowed, with regard to the same accident, by the same tribunal, although on different dates. However, both the appeals, with the consent of the counsel for the appellant, are heard together.;