AMITAVA LALA,J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal arising out of a judgment and order dated 24.2.2009 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaunpur in MACP No. 152 of 2006. In this case the contention of the insurance company is that although the tribunal held that the vehicle was not having the valid permit but no right of recovery has been given and apportionment of liability has been made as 70:30, thereby insured vehicle was fastened with the liability of 70% but in another appeal being First Appeal From Order No. 1592 of 2009, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shahid and others, which is also directed to be heard along with this appeal, we find that the self-same insurance company has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaunpur dated 17.3.2009 in MACP No. 185 of 2006 arising out of self-same accident wherein it has been fastened with the liability of 100% with a right of recovery because of not having valid permit of the vehicle. In the second case the insurance company of the other vehicle was not made party.
(2.) WE are of the view that although the orders were passed by the different Judge sitting in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on different dates but it was appropriate for the concerned tribunal in this case to ask the litigant whether any claim petition arising out of the self-same accident is pending or decided by the tribunal to apprise the facts and circumstances. Had it been so, the tribunal while passing the subsequent order on 17.3.2009 would have passed the order in the similar line as with the earlier order. Moreover, conflict between two orders is such that this Court even at the time of admission cannot avoid the same but to hold that both the findings are perverse in nature: Hence, we remand both the matters to the concerned tribunal to ascertain the apportionment of liability in both the cases afresh. We also pass the order that once the tribunal finds some sort of lacking on the part of the owner is available either not having a permit or so, question of right of recovery may arise, therefore, such question and also question of proportion both have to be considered by the tribunal. Therefore, both the appeals are remanded for the purpose of consideration on the limited point of fixation of apportionment and right of recovery positively within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order upon issuance of notice to all concerned and affording fullest opportunity of hearing to come to a conclusion. However, so far as first case is concerned, 70% of the awarded amount and so far as second case is concerned, 100% of the awarded amount will have to be deposited by the insurance company of the vehicle as a condition for hearing of such cause. In any event, in both the appeals 50% of the total liability will be released to the claimants without security for the time being. Rest of the amount will be kept in Fixed Deposit of a nationalised Bank until or unless further orders to be passed by the Tribunal.
(3.) THEREFORE , both the appeals are disposed of at the stage of admission, a however, without imposing any cost.;