JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals are directed against the award and decree dated 25-11-92 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar, in Claim Petition No. 16 of 1990, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/-along with interest @ 12% per annum. 2. The facts of the case are that Balraj Singh, aged about 22 years, was a student of B. A. He, on motor-cycle No. PUW 487 was going from Sri Karanpur to Ganganagar side. When he reached in front of Gyan Jyoti College Hostel, a tractor tolly bearing No. RJI 151, driven rashly and negligently by its Driver Arjun Singh, came from the opposite side and hit the motor-cycle. Balraj Singh received several injuries which were grievous in nature and on account of these injuries, he died at the spot. The motor-cycle was, also, completely damaged. This motor-cycle was belonging to Gurbachan Singh. Gurbachan Singh (the owner of the motor-cycle and cousin of Balraj Singh filed the Claim Petition No. 103 of 1983 (Gurbachan Singh v. Arjun Singh for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 10,000/- for the damages caused to his motor-cycle. Smt. Gurdeep Kaur and Indra Singh the mother and father of deceased Balraj Singh filed the Claim Petition No. 104 of 1983 for the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/-. As both the claim petitions arose out of the same incident, therefore, the learned Judge of the Tribunal, by its order dated 14-5-87, ordered for consolidation of both the claim petitions and recorded the evidence in Claim Petition No. 103 of 1983. 3. The claimants, in support of their case, examined eight witnesses while the defendants examined two witnesses in their defence. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, by its Award dated 25-11-91 dismissed the claim petition filed by Gurbachan Singh, i.e., Claim Petition No. 103 of 1983 but awarded the compensation of Rs. 70,000/- to claimants Gurdeep Kaur and another. It is against this Award that the driver of the tractor and the State of Rajasthan have filed these two appeals. 4. 70,000/- to claimants Gurdeep Kaur and another. It is against this Award that the driver of the tractor and the State of Rajasthan have filed these two appeals. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Gurdeep Kaur's claim petition (Claim Petition No. 104 of 1983) was not decided by the learned Judge of the Tribunal and that claim petition is still pending as no order has been passed in that claim petition but still the learned Judge of the Tribunal awarded the compensation to claimant Gurdeep Kaur and another. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Judge of the Tribunal has not properly considered the evidence available on record and the points raised before him and arbitrarily passed the award and as such the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set-aside and the case should be remanded to the learned Judge of the Tribunal for writing a fresh judgment. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondents has supported the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal and submitted that merely by not mentioning the particulars of the Claim Petition No. 104 of 1983, it cannot be said that the matter has not been decided. In fact the claim petition filed by Gurdeep Kaur and another was allowed, which is clear from the operative portion of the judgment and if any mistake has been committed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal then that can be cured by this Court under Order 41 rule 33 CPC and this Court can pass or make such order or decree as the case may require in the ends of justice though no appeal has been filed by the claimant. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that since all the parties are before the Court, therefore, this Court can pass an appropriate judgment and decree to meet the ends of justice. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the learned Judge of the Tribunal has properly considered the evidence available on record and rightly awarded the compensation. 6. I have gone through the judgment/award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the learned Judge of the Tribunal has properly considered the evidence available on record and rightly awarded the compensation. 6. I have gone through the judgment/award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has neither considered the evidence available on record in the right perspective nor has decided all the issues raised before him. He has not decided issue No. 5 and left it as it is. The observation made by the learned Judge of the Tribunal reads as under:- " bl fookn~;d dks Hkh fl) djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZ ij FkkA ysfdu izkFkhZ dh vksj ls bl fcUnq ds ckjs esa dksbZ Li"V lk{; ugha gSA blfy;s ;g fcUnq ;Fkkor~ j[kk tkrk gSA " The learned Judge of the Tribunal, while deciding this issue, also, did not consider the evidence in the proper way and a sketchy judgment has been passed. While deciding issue No. 2, the learned Judge of the Tribunal-has, also, kept that issue as it is. This is not the way to decide the issues. The learned Judge of the Tribunal should have given specific finding on all the issued and it is not supposed to leave the issues undecided and to say that the issue stands as it is (Yathawat). The learned Judge of the Tribunal has, also not cared to see that both the claim petitions should be decided. The judgment has been passed in the claim petition filed by Gurbachan Singh, though the decree has been passed in favour of Gurdeep Kaur. Though both the claim petitions were consolidated by the learned Judge of the Tribunal by its judgment dated 25-11 -1992 but still it was necessary for the learned Judge of the Tribunal to pass the order in both the claim petitions. 7. Since neither any order-sheet has been drawn by the learned Judge of the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 104 of 1985 nor the particulars of this case have been mentioned in the judgment, though relief has been given to Gurdeep Kaur and another and their claim petition has been allowed. 7. Since neither any order-sheet has been drawn by the learned Judge of the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 104 of 1985 nor the particulars of this case have been mentioned in the judgment, though relief has been given to Gurdeep Kaur and another and their claim petition has been allowed. This error could have been cured by this Court in the absence of the appeal while exercising the powers under Order 41 rule 33 CPC but since the judgment passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is sketchy and he has not dealt with the evidence properly and left the issues undecided, I, therefore, think it proper to send the case back to the learned Judge of the Tribunal for writing a fresh judgment for deciding all the issues in accordance with law. The judgment/award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal therefore deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 8. In the result, the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed. The award and decree-dated 25-11-91 passed by the learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar, are set-aside and the case is remanded to the learned Judge of the Tribunal to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law in both the claim petitions. The learned Judge of the Tribunal is directed to dispose of both the claim petitions within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the record by him. In the facts and circumstances of the case. I leave the parties to bear their own costs.Appeal allowed. *******