Point of Law: In the absence of any positive material being available before the Tribunal, the discretion exercised by the Tribunal cannot be held either not being judicious or is to be construed as capricious.

JUDGMENT :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. In these two appeals, the judgment and award passed in MACP Nos. 158 of 2016 and 159 of 2016 is under challenge by the insurer of the truck bearing registration No. GJ-05-BV-7812, whereunder the claim petitions filed by same claimant have been allowed in part and a compensation of Rs. 87,84,580/- and 24,23,780/- with interest 9% per annum from date of petitions till realisation with proportionate cost has been allowed by fastening the liability on the appellant – insurer.

2. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that though two claim petitions have been filed and two judgments and awards have been passed, this court cannot loose sight on the fact that all the parties in both the claim petitions are one and the same except the claimants, accident is same, the insurance policies issued to the vehicles involved in the accident are also the same, witnesses examined in both the cases are also same, yet jurisdictional Tribunal instead of clubbing these two petitions and adjudicating the same and delivering a common judgment has chosen to render two separate judgments which was not warranted and reasons are assigned for adopting such course. Such course should not be adopted as it would be waste of precious judicial time.

3. The Registrar General is hereby directed to ensure that all the members of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are intimated accordingly. We direct the members of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that in all such cases where accident is one and the claim petitions are different, same shall be clubbed for the purposes of convenience and a common judgment be delivered which would not only ensure saving of precious judicial time but would also benefit the claimants and easy for the judicial officers in all front. This order shall be complied with by all the members of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal in the state of Gujarat forthwith and Registrar General shall issue a circular in this regard.

4. Brief background of the case :

4.1 The claimant who is the minor daughter preferred claim petitions as the legal heir and legal representative of deceased Smt.Anjaliben Hiteshkumar Chitalia (mother) and Shri Hiteshkumar Jayachandbhai Chitalia (father) seeking compensation of Rs.5 crores and 2 crores respectively on account of her parents having died due to fatal injuries sustained by them in a road traffic accident that occurred on 27.11.2015 on national highway road, within the limits of Chikali police station by filing petitions under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending inter-alia that on 27.11.2015, her parents were travelling as passengers in a Creta car from Surat to Mumbai on National Highway No. 8 and at around 8:30 pm, when the said vehicle reached flyover near village Balvada about 7 kilometre away from Chikli, a truck coming from opposite side i.e. Mumbai to Surat bearing registration No. GJ-05-BV-7812, jumped the divider and dashed against the Creta car which resulted in dragging of the said car and as result of same fatal injuries were sustained by the inmates of the vehicles and her parents succumbed to the said injuries. Hence, two claim petitions were preferred by the minor girl represented by her guardian.

4.2 Tribunal issued notice to the parties, pursuant to which appellant – insurer appeared and filed its written statements denying averments made in the claim petitions except to the extent expressly admitted thereunder and sought for dismissal of the claim petitions. In the mele of the accident that occurred had resulted in TATA Sumo car bearing registration No. GJ-18- G-2826 also ramming to the Creta car and as such the insurer of the TATA sumo car was arraigned as respondent No. 4 before the Tribunal. The said respondent also appeared and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petitions. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and in order to prove the issues framed by the Tribunal, the g