ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. The cleavage of authority - some High Courts taking the view that a joint appeal by the Insurance Company and the owner or driver of the offending vehicle is not competent in its entirety and others taking the view that the appeal of the owner or driver of the vehicle would be competent though not a joint appeal i.e. Insurance Companys appeal alone may be incompetent - has given rise to this group of appeals.

3. The abridged version of facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of these appeals are that all these appeals arise out of a single accident which took place on 10-6-1987 wherein two vehicles, namely, a taxi-car bearing Registration No. RST 1018 and a motor truck bearing Registration No. DEL 3065 were involved in a head-on collision. All the six persons occupying the taxi-car died in the accident, five on the spot and one a little later. Their legal representatives filed claim applications in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur. The Claims Tribunal made an award in favour of the legal representatives of all the victims holding the owner as well as the driver of the truck liable in damages along with the Insurance Company for varying amounts. Certain other directions were given which need not be noticed. Against the said award, the owner of the truck and the Insurance Company filed joint appeals in the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench), Jaipur. The claimants had also filed appeals for enhancement of the compensation amount which were allowed by the High Court. We need not refer to the details thereof because in the present case we are not dealing with the question of quantum of compensation. So far as the joint appeals of the owner and Insurance Company are concerned, a learned Single Judge of the High Court, Bhargava, J., held that the joint appeals are not maintainable and directed their dismissal. Against the said order of the learned Single Judge, the owner and the Insurance Company preferred a joint appeal to a Division Bench of the High Court which came to be disposed of by the impugned judgment dated 12-4-1993. The Division Bench also affirmed the view of the learned Single Judge. Hence these appeals by special leave.

4. At the outset a few provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by which the appeals were governed may be noticed. Section 95 indicates the requirement of a policy of insurance and Section 96(1) provides that if, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (4) of Section 95 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 95 is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, object to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree such sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment-debtor, in respect of the liability, together with interest and cost that may have been awarded. Sub-section (2) next provides that no sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment unless before or after the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment is given the insurer had notice through the court of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of any judgment so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceeding is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the grounds given in the various clauses. Sub-section (6) next provides that no insurer to whom the notice referred to in sub-section (2) has been given shall be entitled to avoid his liability to any person entitled to the benefit of any such judgment as is referred to in