JUDGMENT :

M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard Mr. Prashil Arolkar, learned Counsel for the appellant, Ms. Reshma Satardekar, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 3 and Mr. P. Shirodkar, learned Counsel for respondent no. 2.

2. At the commencement of the final hearing of this appeal, Ms. Satardekar pointed out that respondent no. 3, i.e. the owner of the vehicle has since expired. Mr. Arolkar, however, submitted that respondent no. 1 is the son of respondent no. 3, who was incidentally the driver of the offending vehicle. Having regard to this circumstance, we continued with the final hearing since even otherwise respondent no. 1 would represent the interest of deceased respondent no. 3.

3. Further, there was also some discrepancy about the names of respondents nos. 1 and 3. Accordingly, leave is granted to the claimant to indicate the correct names in the cause title. The claimant will also have to indicate in the cause title the factum of the demise of respondent no. 3 and make an endorsement of her deletion for which leave is now granted. Mr. Arolkar states that such amendment/correction will be carried out forthwith.

4. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.08.2015 in Claim Petition No. 99/2010 by which the Tribunal has dismissed the Claim Petition by holding that the involvement of the bullet motorcycle bearing no. GA-07-H-0461 or the involvement of Mr. Joao Faria (respondent no. 1) has not been established. The Tribunal, after answering this issue, has not bothered to determine the quantum of compensation by holding that this is unnecessary.

5. In Bimlesh and Others vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 8 SCC 591 in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Tribunal has to follow the summary procedure subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is not strictly speaking applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal except to the extent provided in Section 169(2) of the MV Act and the Rules made thereunder. The whole object of the summary procedure is to ensure that the Claim Petition is heard and decided by the Claims Tribunal expeditiously. In paragraph 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Claims Tribunal is required to dispose of all issues one way or the other in one go while deciding the claim petition. Therefore, normally, the Tribunals should not dispose of the Claim Petitions based on some preliminary issue, usually raised by the Insurance Company about maintainability or otherwise. So also, the Tribunals, even after holding that the issue of rashness and negligence is not proved, should not refrain from deciding other issues including the issue of the quantum of compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that since all the issues (points for determination) are required to be considered by the Claims Tribunal together in the light of the evidence that may be let in by the parties and not in piecemeal, often matters are required to be remanded. In Bimlesh (supra) the matter had to be remanded.

6. Therefore, in this case, it will have to be held that the approach of the Tribunal in not deciding all the issues together is contrary to the law laid down in Bimlesh (supra).

7. In this case, the accident took place on 23.09.2009, though the impugned award incorrectly refers to this date as 07.11.2009. The claimant was sixty years old at the time of the accident and must now be in his seventies. At this point, it will not be proper to remand the matter, instead, the matter will have to be decided based on the evidence let in by the parties.

8. The Tribunal, in this case, has recorded a finding that there is no sufficient evidence that the bullet motorcycle bearing Registration No. GA-07-H-0461 was involved in the accident. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that, as a consequence, there is no evidence that respondent no. 1, whose correct name must now be taken as Mr. Joao M. Faria, was not riding the b