A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) A point of importance raised in this appeal is should a joint tort-feasor be allowed to go scotfree and should the Tribunal have ignored the plea raised by the appellant Corporation for joining the joint tort-feasor in claim petition before determining the question as regards the respective negligence and liability arising out of the accident ? ( 2 ) THE claimants were going in an autorikshaw bearing No. GRV 528 in G. I D. C. Estate Panoli and were passing through the National Highway No. 8. At that time S. T. Bus bearing No. GRR 9935 which was coming from opposite side collided with the rikshaw. The accident took place on 28/12/1984 at about 9-00 a. m. On account of the accident one Balkrishna Shahu received fatal injuries and died. ( 3 ) THE father sister and brothers of the deceased preferred claim petition. In the claim petition the owner of the rikshaw and the insurance company of the rikshaw had not been joined. The appellant-Corporation contended that rikshaw owner and the insurance company be also joined as parties. The Tribunal disposed of this contention by holding that it was for the petitioner to select the tort-feasor for suing and non-joinder of another tort-feasor would not entitle the tort-feasor joined in the petition to pray that the amount of compensation to be awarded be reduced to the extent of the liability of the tort-feasor who is not joined in the petition The Tribunal determined the extent of liability of all the tort-feasors and allowed the claim petition. The appellant-Corporation has preferred this appeal against the award The Corporation mainly feels aggrieved by the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal. ( 4 ) PRIMA facie on technical considerations the Tribunal appears to be right and its decision does not seem to be incorrect. However the practical aspect and certain intractable difficulties which may arise on account of such a course being adopted by the Tribunal cannot be lost sight of. ( 4 ) PRIMA facie on technical considerations the Tribunal appears to be right and its decision does not seem to be incorrect. However the practical aspect and certain intractable difficulties which may arise on account of such a course being adopted by the Tribunal cannot be lost sight of. Some such considerations which ought to have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while deciding questions regarding joinder or non joinder of joint tort-feasors are as follows: (I) It is settled legal position that even if the liability of a joint tort-feasor is to the extent of 1 per cent the entire amount i. e. hundred per cent of the amount of compensation awarded can be recovered from the tort-feasor whose liability is adjourned to the extent of 1% only. In a given case the claimants may enter into collusion with the tort-feasor whose liability may be to a greater extent and that joint tort-feasor may not be joined at all before the Tribunal. This possibility cannot be ruled out. (II) Ultimately in a given case entire amount of compensation may be paid by insurance company or public body. But while determining the question as to the extent of liability the question as regards who was negligent in driving the vehicle has got to be decided by the Tribunal. While deciding some cases it may not be of much significance for the Tribunal (or for that matter for this High Court also) to say as to which driver was responsible and to what extent for causing the accident in question. However for determining the rate of premium to be charged for such type of vehicle and for determining the reasonable rate of passenger fare by public Corporations like the appellant herein decision on such questions have far-reaching significance. Therefore though it may not he necessary for determining the issues involved in the case it is certainly a matter of consequence for the purpose of public finance and particularly for determining the policy questions of finances pertaining to public institutions the Transport Corporations and insurance companies. Therefore it is very much necessary that whenever such question is raised before Tribunal as far as possible the Tribunal should not avoid the same and should see that all the tort-feasors are brought before the Tribunal and all the issues pertaining to contributory negligence are decided in the same claim petition. Therefore it is very much necessary that whenever such question is raised before Tribunal as far as possible the Tribunal should not avoid the same and should see that all the tort-feasors are brought before the Tribunal and all the issues pertaining to contributory negligence are decided in the same claim petition. (II) Be it noted that bifurcation of the liability without the presence of another joint tort-feasor becomes an academic formality only. The other joint tort-feasor in whose absence the question is decided may very well say that the decision is not binding to him because he was not party to the said proceeding. On the other hand if other joint tort-feasor is brought on the record and is given an opportunity to plead his case he may be in a position to show that he was not at all negligent or that in his presence certain evidence against him can also be produced by other joint tort-feasor and his liability may be adjudged to a larger extent. (III) As far as public Corporations like the appellate are concerned this decision fixing the extent of negligence and/or the liability may even have impact on the departmental proceedings against the driver concerned. In a present complex society in which the judicial institutions are working the Courts and Tribunals cannot and as far as possible should not function so as to leave problems for the future decision Avoidance of future litigation and prevention of multiplicity of litigation should be the endeavour of all the Judicial Tribunals. We cannot function in isolation being totally oblivious and indifferent to the needs for co-ordination between different public bodies and the need for speedy resolution of socio-economic issues reference to which has been made hereinabove. (VI) In this connection reference may he made to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code As per this provision a Civil Court to which the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable is empowered to direct that a particular party be added as plaintiff or defendant whose presence in the opinion of the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. In proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal this principle can certainly be resorted to or at any rate the same should be kept in mind by the Tribunal while deciding such questions. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid position without deciding this question finally either way on an assumption that Tribunals decision is technically correct we would like to further observe as follows. Simply because technically it may he permissible we hope the Tribunals will not adopt this easy course which may quickly dispose of matters. Such disposals will certainly sow the seeds for future litigation and it is bound to fructify the litigation Therefore whenever a plea for joining another joint tort-feasor is raised and prayed for it would be better for the Tribunal to insist that all the joint tort-feasors be brought on record. At any rule when an application for joining party is submitted by a tort-feasor on record we hope such application will be allowed almost as a matter of rule and practice and another joint tort-feasor will be joined as part) defendant/opponent. ( 6 ) IN this case no such application was there on record. In the peculiar and special facts on this case we do not find any fault with the Tribunal. Therefore subject to the aforesaid observations we propose to dismiss this appeal summarily. ( 7 ) IN the result subject to the aforesaid observations dismissed summarily. Appeal dismissed. .