1. CW- 3823/2006 - Shri Tejiya & Ors. Vs. Shri Bhanwar Lal & Ors, 2. CW.3811/2006 - Nariya & Anr. Vs. Bhanwar Lal & Ors. and 3. CW.3958/2006 - Keiya & Anr. Vs. Bhanwar Lal & Ors. : Order dt.28.4.08 1/3 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3823/2006 Shri Tejiya & Ors. Vs. Shri Bhanwar Lal & Ors. 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3811/2006 Nariya & Anr. Vs. Bhanwar Lal & Ors. 3. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3958/2006 Keiya & Anr. Vs. Bhanwar Lal & Ors. Date : 28.04.2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Sandeep Saruparia for the petitioner. Mr. Janjeev Johari ) for the respondents. Mr. Bharat Shrimali) --------- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. The grievance raised by the petitioners in the present writ petitions is that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, MACT, Udaipur has erred in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC by the impugned order dated 25.2.2006 and not returning the claim petition of the petitioners since the petitioners wanted to approach the present Workmen Compensation Commissioner under the provisions of Workman Compensation Act for the same cause of action and seek their remedy before that authority. 1. CW- 3823/2006 - Shri Tejiya & Ors. Vs. Shri Bhanwar Lal & Ors, 2. CW.3811/2006 - Nariya & Anr. Vs. Bhanwar Lal & Ors. and 3. CW.3958/2006 - Keiya & Anr. Vs. Bhanwar Lal & Ors. : Order dt.28.4.08 2/3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the same Tribunal in the same cause of action had allowed similar application of one of the claimants by the order dated 1.9.2005 (Annex.P/3) whereas by the impugned order dated 25.2.2006, the learned Tribunal rejected the said application merely on the ground that award as to no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 had been made in the present case. 4. Similar was the situation while passing the order dated 1.9.2005 (Annex.P/3) in the case of MAC No.522/2005 (781/04) Durmi Vs. Bhanwar Lal and ors. in which the Tribunal gave reasoning that since the payment in pursuance of the interim award under Section 140 of the Act had not been made to claimant, the claimant could seek his remedy under the Workman Compensation Act but the same reasoning has not prevailed with the Tribunal while passing the impugned order dated 25.2.2006. 5. Learned counsel for Insurance Company tried to support the impugned order dt.25.2.2006. 1. CW- 3823/2006 - Shri Tejiya & Ors. Vs. Shri Bhanwar Lal & Ors, 2. CW.3811/2006 - Nariya & Anr. Vs. Bhanwar Lal & Ors. and 3. CW.3958/2006 - Keiya & Anr. Vs. Bhanwar Lal & Ors. : Order dt.28.4.08 3/3 6. Having heard learned counsels, this Court is of the view that if the claimants want to seek their remedy under the Workman Compensation Act and if the Tribunal allows the same in one case out of the cases arising out of the same cause of action to the different claimants, who were injured in the same accident, there is no good reason why the Tribunal ought not to have returned the claim in the present cases also, even if no fault award u/s 140 of the Act had been made. 7. Accordingly these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 25.2.2006 is set aside so also the interim Award under Section 140 of the M.V. Act and the claimants are allowed to file their claims before the Workman Compensation Commissioner under the provisions of the Workman Compensation Act. No order as to costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.19, SS-1,TS-1 babulal/-