Insurance companies cannot appeal on merits in compensation claims without following statutory procedures under the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. This appeal by the appellants is directed against the judgment passed by learned single Judge of this court in C.I.M.A. No. 74 of 1994, dated 28.4.1995.

2. In order to properly appreciate the respective contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties appearing in this appeal, facts need to be briefly referred to which are as under:
A claim petition under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), came to be filed by the appellants against owner, driver as well as insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No. JKA 8449. Case of the appellants as set - out in the claim petition under the Act was that on 31.10.85 the said vehicle was being driven by Ghulam Rasool Khuroo and Mohan Krishan Tickoo, a college student (since deceased) was overrun by the said bus near Degree College Khanabal, Anantnag. Accident was attributed to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver which resulted in death of said Mohan Krishan Tickoo. In this background compensation in the sum of Rs.4,80,000 was claimed by the appellants. This claim of the appellants was contested and resisted by the owner and driver who filed their common reply. Both of them, i.e., owner and driver amongst other things pleaded that vehicle in question was insured with the insurer, i.e., New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Whereas, said insurance company in its reply raised number of pleas, while contesting the claim of the appellants.

3. On the aforesaid pleadings parties went to trial on the following issues before the Tribunal below:
(1) Whether the accident which had occurred on 31.10.1985 near Degree College, Anantnag resulting into the death of Mohan Krishan Tickoo was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 while driving bus No. 8449? OPP
(2) In case issue No. 1 is proved in the affirmative what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to, from whom and in what proportion? OPP

4. After the conclusion of the trial, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal below made an award in the sum of Rs.2,30,000 together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum w.e.f. the date of filing the application, i.e., 22.3.1986 till payment and the amount under no fault liability was ordered to be adjusted in this award.

5. It may be noted here that appeal filed by the insurance company, i.e., C.I.M.A. No. 74 of 1994 was barred by time so an application under S.5 of the Limitation Act was also filed along with the appeal for condonation of delay in filing it. Record of the appeal before the learned single Judge shows that the appeal was disposed of on 28.4.1995 and the order sheet of that date of C.M.P. No. 177 of 1994, i.e., application for condonation of delay also shows that it was disposed on the same day, i.e., 28.4.95. Thus the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. Fact remains that the order on the application had not been signed by the learned single Judge.

6. It may be noted here that both the learned counsel who are appearing in this Letters Patent Appeal, represented their respective clients during the course of proceedings before the learned single Judge. Present appellants filed an application for supply of copy which is dated 4.5.1995 and it is last document on the file of the appeal. Contents of this application for supply of copy on behalf of the appellants are to the following effect:
"May it please your honour,
That a case under title mentioned above was fixed on 28.4.1995 and has been decided.
It is, therefore, prayed that copy of the judgme