ORDER : 1. Challenge in this appeal is made by the original claimant to the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahal at Godhra dated 30.09.2019 in MACP No. 728 of 2013. 2. Mr. Chetankumar Shah, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is illegal inasmuch as the Insurance Company ought not to have been exonerated. It is submitted that the award of the Tribunal is challenged to the extent that the liability should be fastened on the Insurance Company. 3. The prayer clause of the appeal reads as under. “(C) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to modify the judgment and award dated 30.09.2019 in MACP No. 728 of 2013 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (9th Additional District Judge) Panchmahal at Godhra, by way of making liable to all opponents jointly and severally (including opponent No.3) for to pay this compensation.” 4. Having heard learned advocate for the appellant and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under. 4.1 The appeal is by the claimant. 4.2 The challenge is to that award of the Tribunal, by which the claim of the present appellant is accepted by the Tribunal. 4.3 From the cause title it transpires that, not only the claimant and respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are from the same locality, but the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were driver and owner of the vehicle. The claimant was the pillion rider. 4.4 It was the case of the claimant that the respondents including the Insurance Company (HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd.) should make good the claim amount. 4.5 The operative part of the impugned judgment and award reads as under. “(1) The present claim petition is hereby allowed. (2) Claimant is entitled to Rs.1,33,820/- (Rupees One Lac Thirty Three Thousand, Eight Hundred Twenty Two only) from the opponent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally who are liable to pay the amount of compensation to present claimant with proportionate costs and with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of claim till its realization. The opponent No.3 is exonerated from liability. (3) The opponent Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to deposit the awarded amount within 30 days from the date of the order. The opponent No.3 is exonerated from liability. (3) The opponent Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to deposit the awarded amount within 30 days from the date of the order. (4) Deficit Court fee stamp, if any be recovered from awarded amount and interim amount if paid earlier be deducted. (5) Thereafter out of the remaining amount 70% amount be invested in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for initial period of five years. The remaining 30% amount be paid to applicant by way of account payee cheque. (6) The applicant will not be entitled to get any loan, advance or withdrawal or can create any encumbrances on aforesaid fixed deposit receipt without prior permission of Tribunal. However, periodical interest accrued from time to time on the fixed deposit be paid to claimant. (7) Award be drawn accordingly.” 4.6 The conjoint consideration of the claim of the claimant before the Tribunal and the operative part in the impugned judgment and award takes this Court to the conclusion that, the grievance of the claimant is already redressed by the Tribunal. 4.7 The claimant can not be said to be an aggrieved party, vis-a-vis the impugned award. 4.8 So far the grievance of the appellant that the Insurance Company ought not to have been exonerated is concerned, it need not be examined, at the instance of the claimant. The said grievance can be voiced by the original respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Prima-facie, the respondent Nos. 1 &2, who are judgment debtors have used the claimant, who was the pillion rider, as the mask to put forward their grievance. That need not be entertained. The legality of the impugned award therefore need not be examined, at the instance of the claimant. This appeal therefore needs to be dismissed. 4.9 The above noted facts prima facie indicate connivance of the appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 vis-a-vis the Insurance Company, it would be very harsh to impose cost. Therefore no cost is imposed. 5. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 5.1 This appeal is dismissed. 5.2 It is clarified that, dismissal of this appeal need not be construed as the confirmation of the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal. In the event, the grievance is voiced by the respondent Nos. Therefore no cost is imposed. 5. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 5.1 This appeal is dismissed. 5.2 It is clarified that, dismissal of this appeal need not be construed as the confirmation of the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal. In the event, the grievance is voiced by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 that the Insurance Company ought not to have been exonerated, the same shall be considered in accordance with law, if the appeal is filed by any aggrieved party.