abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1116 OF 1996 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation .. Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Vaishali Vasudeo Shirke 2. Kumari Kajal Vasudeo Shirke 3. Kumari Geeta Vasudeo Shirke 4. Kumari Varsha Vasudeo Shirke 5. Kumari Seema Vasudeo Shirke 6. Master Ganesh Vasudeo Shirke 7. Shri Jaysing Dhaktoji Shirke 8. Sou. Sunderbai Jaysing Shirke .. Respondents Mr.G.S. Hegde for the appellant. Mr.V.S. Gokhale for respondents nos.1 to 6. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 1ST DECEMBER 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard the advocates. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd December 1995 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal") allowing the claim application filed by the respondents and thereby awarding compensation of - 2 - Rs.1,65,000/- to the respondents. 3. Vasudeo Shirke, a police constable, died in an accident caused by collusion between a bus belonging to the appellant and a police jeep in which the deceased Vasudeo was travelling. After consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus, bearing registration No.MTO-8605, belonging to the appellant. The Tribunal also held that the respondents, who were the heirs of the deceased Vasudeo, would be entitled to compensation. The Tribunal assessed the compensation and held that the respondents were entitled to compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application, i.e. 9th August 1985 till realisation with proportionate costs. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal. 4. Mr.Gokhale, learned counsel for the respondents nos.1 to 6, invited my attention to the order dated 22nd April 1997 passed by the Registrar dismissing the appeal against the respondents nos.7 and 8 for non-service. He submitted that the effect of the dismissal of the appeal against the respondents nos.7 and 8 would be dismissal of the appeal against all the respondents. - 3 - 5. Perusal of the impugned order discloses that it is an order for payment of compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- passed in favour of all the respondents. The order is single and indivisible qua all the respondents. The order of payment of compensation has become final qua respondents nos.7 and 8 as the appeal against them has been dismissed as far back 11 years ago. No steps have been taken by the appellant for setting aside the order. Since the order for payment of compensation is indivisible and as the appeal has been dismissed against the respondent nos.7 and 8, the appeal would have to be dismissed as a whole. 6. In the circumstances, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents nos.1 to 6 is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)