1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3275 OF 2009 Pallavi Vikrant Satav .. Petitioner. Vs. Nirmalabai Prataprao Satav & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Prathamesh Bhargude i/b Mr.Sugandh B.Deshmukh for the petitioner. Ms.Aarti Bare for respondent no.3. Mrs.Urmila Sunil for respondent no.3. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 27TH AUGUST, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents waives service. By consent, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.3.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune, on the application at Exhibit-15 filed by the respondent – insurance company in claim application No.1002 of 2003. Petitioner is the wife of the deceased. She filed claim 2 application No.1002 of 2003 seeking Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation while the mother filed claim application No.724 of 2003 seeking Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. Since both these applications were claiming compensation for the death occurred in the accident of one and the same person, namely, husband of the petitioner and son of the applicant in claim application No.724 of 2003, respondent No.3 – insurance company filed the application - Exhibit-15 dated 13.12.2005. The prayer in the application was for either clubbing claim application Nos.1002 of 2003 and 724 of 2003 or for direction to withdraw either of the applications and decide the claim of both in one application. The tribunal disposed of the application – Exhibit-15 by the following order: “Read application moved on behalf of opponent No.2. No say from the applicant. As per bailiff report vide Exh.16, whereabout of applicant’s are not known and she is not residing on the given address in the claim. It is seen that out of the same and one accident, Claim Application No.724/2003 seems to have been filed by opponent no.3 in the capacity as an applicant and present applicant is a party to that claim. Obviously, two claims arising out of the same and one accident and that between same parties cannot be entertained. Hence, either of the claim shall proceed. Applicant is not coming before this 3 court to inform in which claim she wanted to proceed further. In this background, applicant is directed either to withdraw this claim or proceed with MACT No.724/2003 by withdrawing the claim application.” 4. From perusal of the application, it appears that the petitioner was not heard when the aforementioned order was passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the order deserves to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the tribunal for hearing of the application at Exhibit-15 afresh and in the alternative he submitted that both the claim applications be clubbed and heard together. The learned counsel for respondent no.3 – insurance company submits that if the applications are clubbed and directed to be heard together that may create some confusion. Her submissions is contrary to the prayer of her client in the application at Exhibit-15. She could not point out any provision of law/Rules under which there is a bar in clubbing two claim applications, arising from the same accident, filed by two different heirs of the deceased. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice: The order dated 14.3.2008 passed by the tribunal is set aside. Claim Application Nos.1002 of 2003 and 724 of 2003 pending before the motor accident claims tribunal are clubbed 4 and the tribunal is directed to hear these applications together as if that they are one application. The hearing of both the claim applications is expedited. Rule is, accordingly, made absolute. No costs. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)