Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant described hereinafter as the Insurance Company .
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.9417 of 2005 With A. No.5202/2007 S.L.P. C No.9418/2005 A. No.5203/2007 S.L.P. C No.9419/2005 A. No.5204/2007 S.L.P. C No.9420/2005 A. No.5205/2007 S.L.P. C No.9421/2005 A. No.5207/2007 S.L.P. C No.9422/2005 and A. No.5208/2007 S.L.P. C No.9423/2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The respondents were travelling in the Trolly attached to a Tractor as labourers.
They claimed to have suffered injuries because the Tractor with the Trolly in each case met with an accident.
Order was passed by the learned Additional District Judge and Ex officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur in short the MACT on the principle of numberfault liability.
The Insurance Company took the stand that it had numberliability in respect of the persons travelling in the Trolly and the owner of the Tractor is liable to pay companypensation.
This plea was rejected by the MACT.
Appeal in terms of Section 173 of the Act in each case was preferred before the High Court.
Learned Single Judge, prima facie, was of the view that the appeal was number maintainable.
Nevertheless, he referred the matter to the Division Bench, which, it appears referred it to a Full Bench.
While the matter was pending companysideration by the Full Bench, execution proceedings were filed.
Therefore, writ petitions were filed before the High Court.
