AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS application is for joint trial of O.P. Nos. 43 and 44/98 with this O.P. To this petition, the counter petitioner has filed objection. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that, the cause of action, and the opposite parties being the same and the evidence to be adduced in the three O.Ps. being substantially the same, it is feasible and necessary that these O.Ps. are jointly tried. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the opposite parties objected to the joint trial maintaining that, the character of the claim though the same, the point that could arises for determination need not necessarily be the same in all the three O.Ps., and it was also urged that, the evidence to be adduced is such that the matter is tried by an ordinary Civil Court.
O.P. No. 85/98 for the insurance amount on account of the destruction of the Aircraft in the occurrence and O.P. Nos. 43 and 44 are for the insurance amount on account of the death of the two operators of the Aircraft which met with the accident. The claim for the policy amount in all the 3 O.Ps., it is pointed out, arises from the same policy; whereas the claim is pointed out to arise under Section 1 of the policy in the case of O.P. 85, the claims for the policy amount in the other O.Ps. arise from Sections 2 and 3 of the policy. What is necessary to be pointed out is, the three claims arise from the same occurrence, and as per the allegations in the O.Ps., the cause of action for all the three O.Ps. is the same. The Insurance Company is the opposite party in all the 3 O.Ps. The evidence to be adduced in these O.Ps. mainly should be as to the nature and occasion for the occurrence and also whether the occurrence was due to violation of any of the policy conditions. Thus the evidence to be adduced in these 3 O.Ps. also could be substantially the same. The quantum of evidence to be adduced need not necessarily be the sole ground to decide whether a particular matter must go to the Civil Court. The question is whether as per the allegations in the complain, there is deficiency of service. It is pointed out that, as per the allegations since the claim was repudiated which according to the complainant since was no in any tenable ground would constitute deficiency of service. At this stage one can go only by the allegations; the allegations if are proved could constitute deficiency of service. In view of the same we consider that, it is necessary and convenient, in the circumstance, to direct joint trial of all the 3 O.Ps. We do so evidence shall be recorded in OP. 85/98; the said O.P. shall be treated as the main case. The petition is allowed as indicated above. Petition allowed.