( 1 ) WE have heard learned counsel representing the respective parties. Having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, 2002 0 ACJ 1950 (SC), the insurance company which was the original appellant No. 1 applied for transposition as the respondent No. 5 and the original insured remained as the sole appellant. Mr. Bhagavan, learned counsel who represents the original claimants, viz. , respondent Nos. 1 to 4 raised a preliminary objection wherein he has pointed out to us that as far as the sole surviving appellant is concerned who was the original insured, that no objections had been filed before the tribunal nor was the proceeding contested by this party and it is his submission therefore that having regard to the fact that the present appellant has virtually been treated as ex pane before the Claims Tribunal, that the present appeal should be straightaway dismissed and that no interference with the original order is competent. There are two reasons why we have not upheld this submission, the first one being that Mr. Raju who represents respondent No. 5 submits that irrespective of the fact that the insurance comp