JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by United India Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager at Pithoragrah claiming that a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing the order dated 8.6.1992 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), allow the application dated 7.5.1992 moved by the petitioner and direct the said Tribunal to try all the fifty claim petitions together by issuing a writ of mandamus.
2. It appears that bus No. USZ 9411 owned by one Hayat Singh Bhandari met with an accident. The said bus was insured with the petitioner insurance company. As a result of death or injuries- sustained by the passengers travelling in the bus, the following 50 claim petitions were filed by several respective claimants before the Tribunal:
91/90, 83/90 to 89/90, 90/90, 92/90, 94/90,95/90,96/90, 98/90,99/90,100/90, 101/90, 102/90, 103/90, 104/90, 1/91, 2/91, 8/91, 14/91, 15/91, 16/91, 17/91, 21/91, 22/91, 28/91, 33/91, 34/91, 35/91, 36/91, 38/91, 39/91, 40/91, 49/91, 50/91, 51/91, 52/91, 53/91, 54/91, 55/91, 56/91, 57/91, 58/91, 27/91, 48/91 and 47/91.
3. It appeals that Lachhi Ram v. Hayat Singh Bhandari CP No. 91 of 1990, has been treated as leading case by the petitioner since it is the first case in the serial. It appeals that insurance company participated in the proceedings and on 7.5.1992 moved an application through its counsel which contained the following prayer:
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to order that the claim petition noted above and other claim petitions arising out of the same accident may be consolidated and clubbed with the leading case No. 91 of 1990.
4. It further appears that the owner of the truck made an objection to the effect that cases cannot be consolidated and adjudicated together because some of the claims related to persons who were walking by the side of the road and got injuries or died as a result of the rolling down of the bus into the khud.
The Tribunal passed the following order:
Heard the learned counsel. The claim of the claimant is based on their own allegations and it has to be decided accordingly. There is no ground as such to allow this application. Hence it is rejected.
5. Mr. Vineet Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued basically two points. Firstly, that evidence which the insurance company proposes to produce would be the same in all the 50 cases and, therefore, cases require consolidation and, secondly, no useful puipose would be served by permitting recording of the petitioners' evidence in all the 50 cases and, therefore, even in the interest of justice this application should have been allowed by the Tribunal.
6. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Saran on the observations made in Newabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1976 SC 1152; 33 Calcutta 927; and 40 Calcutta, 955. He also relied upon the decision of our court in Dharam Das v. Dharam Das AIR 1917 Allahabad 336. Apart from these authorities, strong reliance has been placed on Order 4-A which has been added in the State of U.P. by U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976.
7. Normally before any final orders were passed in this case, notices would have been issued to the various claimants as also the owner of the bus so that they could place their views before this court but since the order that is proposed to be passed in this case is not going to change the nature of the claim itself or the mode of recording of evidence by each claimant in each case, the said requirement is being done away with. The right of each and every claimant and that of bus owner will be fully secured by the order that is proposed to be passed.
8. The petitioner's claim is, as noted above, that his evidence may be recorded in the leading case as and when situation arises and all the claimants may be permitted to cross-examine those witnesses. The right of cross-examination vested in the owner of the bus may also be exercised in the same manner. After this is done the true copy of the said statement may be filed in all the 50 cases. Mr. Vineet Saran has made a statement that his client agrees to this procedure in order that the compensation matters relating to the 50 claim petitions are decided at the earliest. In other words, if this procedure is adopted the right of each and every claimant in all the claim petitions and also that of the bus owner is fully protected but at the same time the repetition of evidence of those very witnesses in all the 50 cases which the insurance company would like to produce shall become unnecessary.
9. In the case of Dharam Das v. Dharam Das AIR 1917 Allahabad 336, it has been held that where more than two suits in the matter of the same Trust have been sanctioned and are brought to trial, although with different parties, in the same court, at the same time, on the same subject-matter, under the same circumstances and for the same kind of relief, a judge has power under the Civil Procedure Code to consolidate the suits, that is to say, for the purpose of the hearing to merge them into one and treat them as one for all practical purposes.
10. A judge making an express order consolidating such suits even without the consent of the parties acts within his jurisdiction.
11. In fact the amendment brought about by the State of U.P. is more explicit on the point. Order 4-A is a new Chapter added in the year 1977. Its heading is 'Consolidation of Cases'. It has only one rule which reads as under:
Consolidation of suits and proceedings: When two or more suits or proceedings are pending in the same court, and the court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice it may by order direct their trial, whereupon all such suits and proceedings may be decided upon the evidence in al! or any such suit or proceedings.
12. This procedural law has made it permissible that the evidence in one case in the given circumstances may be used and relied upon and its decision may be taken by the court in the other suits or proceedings.
13. Consequently, it appeals desirable in this case to direct that whatever evidence the insurance company wants to lead it may be permitted to produce in one case, i.e., Case No. 91 of 1990. All the claimants in all the other claim petitions as well as the owner of the bus will be at liberty to cross-examine the witness produced by the insurance company, as if the witness is appealing in his/her claim petition. Thus, the cross-examination will be with regard to the points involved in each claim petition individually. Once this is done, copy of the statement will be filed in each claim petition and the right of the bus owner and that of individual claimants to lead their evidence in the individual cases will remain fully secured. This direction will apply irrespective of at what stage of the proceedings the evidence of the insurance company is produced.
14. Mr. S.C. Mamgain, learned Standing Counsel, has been heard in opposition on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 and 4 for whose behalf he has accepted notices.
15. All Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals will do well to follow this procedure in order to quicken disposal of claim petitions where several of them are filed arising out of one accident.
16. With the aforesaid observations and directions this writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage.