JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, dated 31.07.2012, made in M.C.O.P.No.127 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims – Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, dated 31.07.2012, made in M.C.O.P.No.128 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims - Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, dated 31.07.2012, made in M.C.O.P.No.127 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims - Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. ) Common Judgment: 1. C.M.A.(MD)No.1465 of 2012 has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.127 of 2011 dated 31.07.2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. 2. C.M.A.(MD)No.1466 of 2012 has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.128 of 2011 dated 31.07.2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. 3. C.M.A.(MD)No.1467 of 2012 has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.130 of 2011 dated 31.07.2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur. The Tribunal passed a common order in M.C.O.P.Nos.127, 128 and 130 of 2011. The appellants herein are all claimants in the original M.C.O.P. Petitions. The respondents herein are the respondents in the original M.C.O.P petitions. 4. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.127 of 2011 is as follows: On 25.01.2009, at about 7.30 pm, when the petitioner and others were travelling in an Ambasador car bearing Registration No.TN-59-C-3222, along the Trichy – Karur main Road, near Mayanur Railway Gate, a Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-16-D-5109, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the Car. The petitioner sustained injuries. She was admitted in Coimbatore Ramakrishna Hospital from 25.01.2009 till 29.01.2009. She sustained severe injuries and she claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 5. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.128 of 2011 is as follows: In the above accident, the petitioner sustained injury posterior dislocation of right hip. He took first aid in Karur KG Hospital, then he was admitted in Coimbatore Ganga Hospital. He sustained permanent disability and he claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. 6. 5. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.128 of 2011 is as follows: In the above accident, the petitioner sustained injury posterior dislocation of right hip. He took first aid in Karur KG Hospital, then he was admitted in Coimbatore Ganga Hospital. He sustained permanent disability and he claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation. 6. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.128 of 2011 is as follows: In the above accident, the petitioner sustained injuries. She took treatment in Karur KG Hospital. She claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 7. Brief substance of the counter filed by the Insurance Company in all the three petitions (M.C.O.P.Nos.127, 128 and 130 of 2011) is as follows:- The date and time of accident, mode of accident are to be proved. The age, income and profession of the petitioners are to be proved. It was the driver of the Ambasador car, who is responsible for the accident. The Ambasador Car was driven on the middle of the road and it dashed against the Tractor. Disability, nature of injuries, mode of treatment are all denied. Compensation claimed is excessive. 8. On the side of the claimants, 4 witnesses were examined and 15 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined and no document was marked. The owner of the vehicle, viz., the first respondent, died and steps were not taken to implead the LR's of the first respondent. On that ground, the case against the first respondent/owner of the vehicle was dismissed by the Tribunal. Since the case against the first respondent/owner of the vehicle was dismissed as there is no vicarious liability for the Insurance Company, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petitions. All the claimants have filed this appeals to set aside the order of the Tribunal. 9. The order of the Tribunal was not based on merits. The order of the Tribunal was based only on the dismissal of the case against the first respondent. The appellant's counsel prayed this Court to set aside the order of the Tribunal and to remand back the matter to the Tribunal, permitting the appellant to implead the LR's of the deceased / first respondent. 10. The objections raised by the Insurance Company are not serious in nature. 11. The appellant's counsel prayed this Court to set aside the order of the Tribunal and to remand back the matter to the Tribunal, permitting the appellant to implead the LR's of the deceased / first respondent. 10. The objections raised by the Insurance Company are not serious in nature. 11. To give an opportunity to the claimants to put forth their case, impleading the LR's of the deceased/ first respondent is necessary. Only if there is a claim against the first respondent is made out, the Insurance Company may be fixed with any liability. 12. In view of the above situation, the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The claim petitions are remanded back to the Tribunal. The appellants / claimants are permitted to take steps to implead the LR's of the first respondent within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. After the impleading of the LR's of the first respondent, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the case within a period of two months therefrom. 13. The Appeals are disposed of with the above directions. No costs.