JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. These First Appeals are filed by the appellant-HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited being aggrieved by judgment and award passed under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, dated 06.02.2014, by the Hon’ble MACT (Aux.) and 4th Addl District Judge, Rajkot at Dhoraji in MACP No. 108 of 2013 (First Appeal No. 941 of 2013), 110 of 2013 (First Appeal No. 942 of 2013), and 109 of 2013 (First Appeal No. 943 of 2013). 2. In these matters learned advocate Mr. Maulik J. Shelat submitted that the Court on hearing the learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company issued notice for final disposal on 03.04.2014 returnable on 01.05.2014. Respondent No. 2 is represented by learned advocate Mr.Rathin P. Raval. Respondents no. 1.1 to 1.3 have chosen not to appear. The matter was listed on and adjourned to the following dates: Listed on Adjourned to 01-05-14 25-06-2014 25-06-14 24-07-2014 24-07-14 12-08-14 12-08-14 27-08-14 27-08-14 05-09-14 05-09-14 11-09-14 - advocate to take further instructions. 11-09-14 17-09-14 17-09-14 22-09-14 22-09-14 26-09-14 3. The learned advocate has filed an affidavit affirmed by one, Alpesh Mahendrabhai Patel, authorised signatory of the appellant - company. The contents of the affidavit make it clear that at Dhoraji a curious practise is going on, which is found in at least 20 matters, details of which are set out in a tabular statement which is annexed as Annexure ‘B’ to this affidavit. It was inquired from the learned advocate appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company whether the practise reflected is practised by only one particular advocate at Dhoraji. The learned advocate states that in all these matters the learned advocate is common. 4. Coming to the practise it can be seen from para 1 of the affidavit wherein it is stated that, “1. The appellant has filed present appeal aggrieved by Judgment and NFL Award dated 06-02-2014 below Ex. 5 passed by the MACT, (Aux), 4th Additional District Judge, Rajkot @ Dhoraji in MACP/108/2013. The appellant states that original claimants in their claim petition has not joined appellant insurance company has regular opponent but joined as notice. The appellant has filed application objecting such joining of appellant as notice and not being joined as regular party-opponent (Ex.17). However, ld. Tribunal has without deciding such application has allowed NFL application which is filed by original claimants. .. The appellant has filed application objecting such joining of appellant as notice and not being joined as regular party-opponent (Ex.17). However, ld. Tribunal has without deciding such application has allowed NFL application which is filed by original claimants. .. ..” (emphasis supplied) In para 2 of this affidavit the deponent has stated that: “2. The appellant state that on inquiry from ld. Tribunal concern, it came to knowledge of appellant that in other similar type of cases, other claimants in their respective claim petition have also not joined insurance companies as regular opponent in claim petition but joined in the capacity of notice . Moreover, claimants have further stated in present claim petition that they do not want to join or intend to join appellant insurance company as regular opponent but wants to join as notice as per S. 149 (2) of M.V. Act and notice be issued accordingly. Likewise, in the said cases, respective claimants have also made similar statement in their claim petition. So, respective insurance company in those claim petitions have objected their joining as notice in claim petition by way of separate application but with best of my knowledge and information made available to me from respective insurance companies, ld. Tribunal has without deciding such application and without deciding issue, whether insurance company can be saddled with liability to pay compensation without joining it as regular opponent in claim petition, it has allowed NFL (No Fault Liability) applications. I crave leave of this hon’ble court to submit a chart showing details of those similar claim petitions wherein insurance companies are not regularly joined as opponent and objection/application of insurance companies are pending before ld. Tribunal though NFL applications have been allowed. The same is marked as Annexure-B. The appellant is ready & willing to submit respective claim petitions & applications of insurance companies to be placed before this Hon’ble Court as & when order.” (emphasis supplied) Learned advocate Mr.Shelat for the appellant-Insurance Company makes available for perusal the claim petitions which contained aforesaid statement for perusal. The same are taken on record. 5. The learned advocate for the appellant-insurance company submitted that this practise is found to be unique only at this particular station, nowhere else in the State of Gujarat, such practise is followed. The Hon’ble MACTs are not passing ‘No Fault Liability (NFL) award’ without deciding the objection application filed by the insurance company. The same are taken on record. 5. The learned advocate for the appellant-insurance company submitted that this practise is found to be unique only at this particular station, nowhere else in the State of Gujarat, such practise is followed. The Hon’ble MACTs are not passing ‘No Fault Liability (NFL) award’ without deciding the objection application filed by the insurance company. Learned advocate Mr. Shelat for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that this practise is not only causing hardship but also causing prejudice to the interest of the insurance companies. The learned advocate for the appellant-insurance company submitted that therefore, it is requested in para 4, which reads as under: “4. Therefore, appellant respectfully submit that in view of above stated facts & law, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct ld. Tribunal that whenever claimant joined insurance company as notice in claim petition and such joining has been objected by insurance company than before allowing NFL application or Regular Claim Petition, it should first decides objection/application of appellant insurance company (in present case Ex.17). .. .. “ (emphasis supplied) 6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts this Court is of the opinion that these First Appeals deserve to be allowed. The same are accordingly allowed. The Hon’ble Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) & 4th Additional District Judge, Rajkot at Dhoraji is directed to see that every time when claimant joins insurance company as notice in the claim petition and when such joining is objected by the insurance company, then before passing ‘No Fault Liability (NFL) Award’ on such application or an award in regular claim petition the Hon’ble Tribunal must first decide the objection application of the appellant-insurance company. The Hon’ble Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) and 4th Additional District Judge, Rajkot at Dhoraji is further directed to decide application-Exh.17 filed in MACP No. 108 of 2013 as early as possible, but not later than three months from the date of the receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. The award passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal could have been quashed by this Court, but to see that no prejudice is caused to the claimants and they are not deprived of the benefits of ‘No Fault Liability (NFL) award’, the NFL award is not quashed but aforesaid directions are issued by this judgment and order. The award passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal could have been quashed by this Court, but to see that no prejudice is caused to the claimants and they are not deprived of the benefits of ‘No Fault Liability (NFL) award’, the NFL award is not quashed but aforesaid directions are issued by this judgment and order. The Registry is directed to issue necessary circular containing the aforesaid direction to all the Hon’ble Tribunals in the State of Gujarat so that in future such practise is not adopted before any other Hon’ble MACTs. 7. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company that insurance company has raised contention in First Appeals with regard to breach of condition of policy as well as statutory rights available to the insurance company in Claim Petition filed under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of decision of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sidikbhai Ukabhai Solanki and anr. reported in 2012 (2)GLH 465 , the appellant Insurance company has preferred these appeals with a view to see that present ‘No Fault Liability award’ is not treated as constructive res judicata while deciding claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As this court has directed the Hon’ble Tribunal to decide the objection application of the Insurance Company first in point of time, that is before passing ‘No Fault Liability award’, but as in the present case such award is already passed, hence considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and taking into consideration the fact that the Court has issued the directions to all the Hon’ble Tribunals, for the first time the Court has not quashed ‘No Fault Liability Award’, but modified by issuing certain directions. 8. Taking into consideration the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellant - insurance company the Court is of the opinion that if necessary directions are given to the Hon’ble Tribunal, ‘not to treat the order passed by the Hon’ble Tribunal below application under Sec.140 as constructive res judicata’ and that it will not come in way in any manner while deciding main claim petition filed under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, then it will serve the ends of justice. 9. 9. In view of the above discussion, order dated 06.02.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) and 4th Addl District Judge, Rajkot at Dhoraji in MACP No. 108 of 2013 (First Appeal No. 941 of 2013), 110 of 2013 (First Appeal No. 942 of 2013), and 109 of 2013 (First Appeal No.943 of 2013) be not treated as constructive res judicata and the same shall not come in way in any manner while deciding claim petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Hon’ble Tribunal shall decide the main claim petition on merits without being influenced by the order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal below application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Insurance Company will be at liberty to raise all contentions available under the law before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 10. Pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal below application under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, after the balance amount is deposited by the Insurance Company, the Hon'ble Tribunal will pass necessary orders for disbursement and investment in cumulative deposit. The claimants will file an 'undertaking' on affidavit that, ‘claimants will neither withdraw nor permit the main petition getting dismissed for default/ for non prosecution and will obtain judgment on merits’. 11. These First Appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. The Registry is directed to return Record & Proceeding to the Hon’ble Tribunal forthwith. 12. As the First Appeals are allowed no orders on the Civil Applications. The same are disposed of. Appeals allowed.