JUDGMENT :

Ravi R. Tripathi, J.

These First Appeals are filed by the appellant-HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited being aggrieved by judgment and award passed under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, dated 06.02.2014, by the Hon’ble MACT (Aux.) and 4th Addl District Judge, Rajkot at Dhoraji in MACP No. 108 of 2013 (First Appeal No. 941 of 2013), 110 of 2013 (First Appeal No. 942 of 2013), and 109 of 2013 (First Appeal No. 943 of 2013).

2. In these matters learned advocate Mr. Maulik J. Shelat submitted that the Court on hearing the learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company issued notice for final disposal on 03.04.2014 returnable on 01.05.2014. Respondent No. 2 is represented by learned advocate Mr.Rathin P. Raval. Respondents no. 1.1 to 1.3 have chosen not to appear. The matter was listed on and adjourned to the following dates:

3. The learned advocate has filed an affidavit affirmed by one, Alpesh Mahendrabhai Patel, authorised signatory of the appellant - company. The contents of the affidavit make it clear that at Dhoraji a curious practise is going on, which is found in at least 20 matters, details of which are set out in a tabular statement which is annexed as Annexure ‘B’ to this affidavit.

It was inquired from the learned advocate appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company whether the practise reflected is practised by only one particular advocate at Dhoraji. The learned advocate states that in all these matters the learned advocate is common.

4. Coming to the practise it can be seen from para 1 of the affidavit wherein it is stated that,

“1. The appellant has filed present appeal aggrieved by Judgment and NFL Award dated 06-02-2014 below Ex. 5 passed by the MACT, (Aux), 4th Additional District Judge, Rajkot @ Dhoraji in MACP/108/2013. The appellant states that original claimants in their claim petition has not joined appellant insurance company has regular opponent but joined as notice. The appellant has filed application objecting such joining of appellant as notice and not being joined as regular party-opponent (Ex.17). However, ld. Tribunal has without deciding such application has allowed NFL application which is filed by original claimants. .. ..”

(emphasis supplied)

In para 2 of this affidavit the deponent has stated that:

“2. The appellant state that on inquiry from ld. Tribunal concern, it came to knowledge of appellant that in other similar type of cases, other claimants in their respective claim petition have also not joined insurance companies as regular opponent in claim petition but joined in the capacity of notice . Moreover, claimants have further stated in present claim petition that they do not want to join or intend to join appellant insurance company as regular opponent but wants to join as notice as per S. 149 (2) of M.V. Act and notice be issued accordingly. Likewise, in the said cases, respective claimants have also made similar statement in their claim petition. So, respective insurance company in those claim petitions have objected their joining as notice in claim petition by way of separate application but with best of my knowledge and information made available to me from respective insurance companies, ld. Tribunal has without deciding such application and without deciding issue, whether insurance company can be saddled with liability to pay compensation without joining it as regular opponent in claim petition, it has allowed NFL (No Fault Liability) applications. I crave leave of this hon’ble court to submit a chart showing details of th