SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) CLAIMANTS who are legal representatives of one Hitu have filed this appeal claiming enhancement of the compensation awarded to them by the learned tribunal. In all a total sum of Rs. 5,000 only was awarded by way of compensation for the death of Hitu in an accident. The learned Tribunal passed an award jointly and severally against all the respondents (non-applicants ). The impugned award is dated 28. 6. 1993. It is passed by m. A. C. T. , Sendhwa in Claim Case No. 5 of 1992. ( 2 ) ON 9. 3. 1986 Hitu was going on road when the respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1) came on motor cycle from the opposite side and dashed to Hitu. As a result of impact, Hitu died after some time in the hospital. This led to filing of claim petition by the present appellants who are legal representatives of late Hitu, claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 82,000. In the claim petition, the claimants arrayed 4 respondents as 4 non-applicants on the assertion that motor cycle in question was owned by defendant No. 2, he having purchased from defendant Nos. 3 and 4 whereas the same was being driven by defendant No. 1. ( 3 ) THE claim was denied by all the 4 non-applicants. According to them the motor cycle was owned by non-applicant no. 3 and in 1985 he sold to non-applicant no. 2. ( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal by impugned award held all the 4 non-applicants liable for payment of compensation. So far as the quantum of compensation was concerned the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000 to the claimants. It is this award which is impugned in this appeal. ( 5 ) HEARD Mr. Joshi for the appellant and Mr. K. S. Paunekar, learned counsel for the respondents. ( 6 ) IT may be mentioned that though this appeal was filed by the claimants against all the non-applicants originally claiming enhancement of compensation, yet the appellants did not make any efforts to get the notices served on respondent No. 3 (N. A. No. 3) of this appeal. Eventually the name of respondent No. 3 was deleted from the array of memo of appeal vide court's order dated 20. 8. 1996. Eventually the name of respondent No. 3 was deleted from the array of memo of appeal vide court's order dated 20. 8. 1996. While deleting the name of respondent No. 3 at the request of appellant it observed that its effect would be considered at the time of final disposal of the appeal. ( 7 ) TAKING the preliminary objection at the threshold of this appeal, learned counsel for the respondents urged for the dismissal of this appeal on the ground that the effect of deletion of respondent No. 3 would result in conflict of decrees if passed by this court now in appeal. It was his submission that it is now a case as if respondent No. 3 is not on the record of the appeal or in other words, no appeal is filed against him (respondent No. 3 ). According to learned counsel the award passed against respondent No. 3 by the trial court (Tribunal) has become final which was joint and several against all the respondents including the respondent No. 3. He, therefore, urged that in a case where the award/decree which is challenged in appeal is joint and several against more than one defendant then it is necessary for the appellant to implead all the defendants to avoid any conflict. He elaborated his submission by arguing that in the present appeal the award as against respondent No. 3 for Rs. 5,000 has become final because the same was not challenged in this appeal by not making him a party whereas in the event of this appeal being allowed, enhancing the compensation by awarding more amount than what is awarded, it will come out with a different modified award. This situation emerging of two awards will amount to conflict and hence the entire appeal must fail in its merit. ( 8 ) IN reply the learned counsel for the appellant has refuted the submissions and asked for decision on merits. He mainly argued on the quantum of compensation being inadequate and against the principle laid down for awarding the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. ( 9 ) HAVING heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in my opinion the objection raised by the respondents deserves to be sustained. Accordingly this appeal must fail. ( 9 ) HAVING heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in my opinion the objection raised by the respondents deserves to be sustained. Accordingly this appeal must fail. It is a clear case where any decision if rendered in favour of the appellant (claimant) would result in conflict of two awards one against the respondent No. 3 and other by this court against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Since the impugned award was rendered against all the 4 respondents jointly and severally, the situation visualised cannot be avoided. In order to upturn any award of this nature the presence of all the respondents who have suffered the award must be before the appellate court. Failure on the part of appellant to sue respondent No. 3 is fatal for the survival of this appeal. It cannot be heard on merits as its presentation and further prosecution has become defective resulting in taking away the jurisdiction of this court in passing an award in favour of appellant or in any event, taking away the jurisdiction of this court in modifying the impugned award thereby creating a situation of emerging of two awards. This court while deleting the name of respondent No. 3 had clearly kept this issue open for this court to decide at the time of final hearing so that rights of parties can be worked out. Keeping in consideration the legal effect of deletion of respondent No. 3 would mean as if he was not deleted in appeal since inception. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant sought to attack the legality of impugned award on merits. I am afraid, I cannot embark upon this submission. It is really unfortunate that the genuine claim of the claimant in this appeal is being defeated. But at the same time legal position in my opinion and as observed supra does not permit me to examine the merits and demerits of impugned award. ( 11 ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, I uphold the objection raised by respondents and dismiss the appeal. No costs. Appeal dismissed. .