JUDGMENT 1. Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, appellant/claimant herein has challenged the award dated 16/01/2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District Bilaspur (in short 'the claims Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 05/1992, by which the Claims Tribunal has rejected her claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under: 2.1 The appellant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pleading interalia that on 20/08/1991 at Chandrapur (Dabhra), Tahsil Sakti, on account of collusion of two vehicles i.e. Truck and Jeep, she suffered injuries. It was further pleaded that the Truck was owned by non-applicant/respondent No.2 & insured with non-applicant/respondent No. 3 and Jeep was owned by non-applicant/respondent No.4 & insured with non-applicant/respondent No. 5 and claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.54,450. 2.2 The respondents/non-applicants opposed the claim filed by the appellant/claimant. 2.3 Learned claims Tribunal on close scrutiny of oral and documentary evidence on record held that the appellant/claimant has failed to establish the fact of accident on 20/08/1991 and further failed to prove negligence on the part of the respondent/driver and consequently, the appellant/claimant is not entitled for any compensation and rejected the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. Mr. Sachin Singh Rajput, learned counsel appearing as a friend of the Court submits that the appellant/claimant has filed a copy of the award passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 01/1992 (Chetan & another v. Tej Singh & others) decided on 16/01/2001 and Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02/1992 (Banarsi Sahu and others v. Tej Singh & others) decided on 16/01/2001, arising out of the same accident, in which, the appellant/claimant has also suffered injury. He further submits that the fact of accident has held to be proved in the said claim cases Chetan & another v. Tej Singh & others and Banarsi Sahu and others v. Tej Singh & others (supra), and compensation has been awarded to appellant/claimant by the Claims Tribunal in those cases; whereas the appellant's/claimant's claim petition has been rejected, holding that accident has not been proved. He further submits that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in this regard is perverse. He further submits that the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal in this regard is perverse. He lastly submits that the Claims Tribunal ought to have heard all the claim cases together and ought to have decided all the claim cases by common award, in order to avoid conflicting award in connected claim cases. 4. Per contra Mr. H.B. Agrawal Sr. counsel, appearing with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal and Mr. Sourabh Sharma, counsel appearing for the respective Insurance Company supported the award stating inter alia that the impugned award is strictly in accordance with law and no interference is called for in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5. I have heard learned counsel of the parties and considered their rival submissions therein. 6. I have gone through the award passed by the claims Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 01/1992 (Chetan & another v. Tej Singh & others) decided on 16/1/2001 and Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02/1992 (Banarsi Sahu and others v. Tej Singh & others) decided on 16/1/2001. Upon careful perusal, it would appear that : (1) Claim Case No. 01/1992 (Chetan & another v. Tej Singh & others) decided on 16/01/2001. (2) Claim Case No. 02/1992 (Banarsi Sahu & others v. Tej Singh & others) decided on 16/01/2001. (3) Claim Case No. 05/1992 (Kamla Bai v. Tej Singh & others) decided on 16/01/2001. All three claim cases are arisen out of one accident occurred on 20/08/1991, on account of collusion between two vehicles i.e. Truck No. BR-14/A/2473 and Jeep No. B.P.T.-266; resulting into passing of two conflicting awards by the Claims Tribunal. 7. The M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called as 'Rules of 1994') has been enacted. Rule 237 of the Rules of 1994 prescribes the procedure in connected cases. 237. Procedure in connected cases-(1) Where two or more cases pending before a Claims Tribunal arise out of the same accident, and any issue involved is common to two or more cases, such cases, may, so far as the evidence bearing on such issue is concerned, be held simultaneously. 237. Procedure in connected cases-(1) Where two or more cases pending before a Claims Tribunal arise out of the same accident, and any issue involved is common to two or more cases, such cases, may, so far as the evidence bearing on such issue is concerned, be held simultaneously. (2) Whereas action is taken under sub-rule (1) the evidence bearing on the common issue or issues shall be recorded on the record of one case and the Claims Tribunal shall certify under its hand on the records of any such other case, the extent to which evidence so recorded applies to such other case and the fact that the parties to such other case had the opportunity of being present, and, if they were present, of cross-examining the witnesses. 8. In the instant case, Rule 237 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 has not been followed in its letter and spirit and the three claim cases arising out of the same accident dated 20/08/1991, have been tried separately without following the procedure laid down in Rule 237 of the Rules of 1994; resulted into passing of conflicting awards by the claims Tribunal. By the impugned award i.e. Motor Accident Claim Case No. 05/1992 (Kamla Bai v. Tel Singh & others) has been rejected holding that the accident is not proved, whereas, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 01/1992 (Chetan & another v. Tej Singh & others) and Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02/1992 (Banarsi Sahli and others v. Tej Singh & others) arising out of the same accident, the accident has held to be proved by the Claims Tribunal in its award dated 16/01/2001 and the award directing the compensation has been passed, which could have been avoided following mandate of Rule 237 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. 9. The Division Bench of M.P. High Court had oil occasion to consider the impact of Rule 237 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1994 in Capital Roadways and Finance (Pvt.) Ltd., Bhopal Vs. Mohan Bai wd/o Mehtab Singh and others 1999 (2) MPLJ 554 , para-6 as under: 6. In the instant case, the photo copy of the policy was on record in both the cases. The two claim cases arising out of the same accident have been decided in two separate cases by two separate Judges. Mohan Bai wd/o Mehtab Singh and others 1999 (2) MPLJ 554 , para-6 as under: 6. In the instant case, the photo copy of the policy was on record in both the cases. The two claim cases arising out of the same accident have been decided in two separate cases by two separate Judges. In one of the cases, the fact of insurance policy is held to be proved', but the liability of the insurance company is restricted to Rs.50,000/- whereas in the other case, the Claims Tribunal held that the insurance itself is not proved although in one of the two cases the fact of pendency of connected case in another Court was brought to the notice of the learned member. Such eventualities giving rise to conflicting findings can be avoided if claims arising out of the same accident between same parties are clubbed together for trial and decision. See Rule 237 of M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 which on principle can be made applicable by obtaining orders for clubbing the cases for trial which arise from the same accident: 10. Thus, for the reasons aforementioned the award passed by the learned claims Tribunal rejecting the claim petition filed by the present appellant/claimant holding that the accident is not proved cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Claims Tribunal to consider afresh, after giving opportunity to lead evidence to the parties and shall also keep in the mind the award passed in the Motor Accident Claim Case No. 01/1992 (Chetan & another v. Tej Singh & others) and Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02/1992 (Banarsi Sahu and others v. Tej Singh & others). The Claims Tribunal will pass the award preferably within a period of 4 months. Since the appellant/claimant has not appeared before this Court, the Claims Tribunal will decide the claim case after noticing the parties, strictly in accordance with law. 11. This Court appreciates the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Rajput, learned counsel, who appeared as a friend of Court. Appeal Remanded.