A.P.RAVANI,J. - (1.) THE expression 'an appeal' occurring in Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (and now in Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) has given rise to these matters before the Full Bench. Does the expression 'an appeal' connote number of appeals available to an aggrieved person or is it used as requirement of grammar of English language to write the correct language? This, in short, is the question to be examined and decided by the Full Bench in both these appeals. The special appeals arise out of the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in appeals under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act'). In both these special appeals, the Division Bench of this court by order dated 10.8.1993 referred the following question to a larger Bench: Whether a special appeal lies under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against a judgment of the learned single Judge under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? It is the aforesaid question which is required to be examined and answered.
(2.) IN an unfortunate automobile accident which took place in Jodhpur on 21.5.1979, a truck bearing No. RJT 4061 was involved. In the aforesaid accident, two persons died. The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased filed two claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal allowed the claim petitions to certain extent. The owners and driver of the vehicle preferred appeals before the High Court as provided under Section 110 -D of the Act. In both the appeals, the learned single Judge held that the insurance company was liable to satisfy the award passed by the Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge, these two special appeals bearing No. 604 of 1989 and 605 of 1989 have been filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. Before the Division Bench (coram M. C. Jain and R.S. Verma, JJ.), a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents, i.e., original claimants that the special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, was not maintainable in view of the Division Bench decision of this court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Lad Kanwar 1994 ACJ 105 (Rajasthan). The other side relied upon a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kastoori Devi 1988 ACJ 8 (Rajasthan) and contended that the special appeal was maintainable. The Division Bench felt that there was conflict between two decisions of the Division Bench of this court. Hence, the Division Bench raised the question as indicated hereinabove and passed the order to place the matter before the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to answer the question raised in the order. Thereafter, the matter has been referred to the Full Bench. This is how the matter has come up before this Full Bench which is required to answer the aforesaid question.
(3.) OUR attention has been drawn to the following two decisions of the Division Bench of this court wherein the view taken is that the special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, is not maintainable against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in an appeal under Section 110 -D of the Act: (1) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Lad Kanwar 1994 ACJ 105 (Rajasthan). (2) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sadhu Singh 1994 ACJ 157 (Rajasthan). The first decision in point of time is in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. decided on 30.3.1993, while the other decision in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is decided on 13.8.1993. Incidentally, both the decisions have been rendered by the same Division Bench (coram K.C. Agrawal, C.J. and V.K. Singhal, J.). ;