Anita Gupta vs Surinder Singh Sethi & Ors.

Claiming compensation of Rs. 2 lacs for the injuries received by the appellant on December 19, 2001 at 5.30 p.m. near Convent High School

Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, because of the rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car no. DL4CN5449, the appellant Mrs. Anita Gupta filed a claim

petition with the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu.

It appears that after framing of issues by the Claims Tribunal on January 6, 2003, the claim petition was dismissed in default of appellant's

appearance on 30.3.2005. Atter its restoration on 15.07.2005 only one opportunity appears to have been allowed to the claimant to lead her

evidence in the case whereafter it was dismissed for lack of evidence on 16.09.2005.

Appellant's learned counsel submits that the claimant had gone to her parental house in Himachal Pradesh and it was because of his disability to

inform the claimant on her available address of Jammu that requisite instructions could not be conveyed to the appellant to produce her evidence in

the case. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the beneficial provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, providing for speedier remedy to seek

compensation for the injuries sustained in the Motor Vehicular accident, the appellant was required to be given some more time by the Tribunal to

substantiate her claim, And that providing of only one opportunity to lead evidence, after restoration of the claim petition, has resulted in failure of

justice.

Insurance Company's learned counsel submitted that having failed to produce evidence in support of her claim, despite several opportunities

having been allowed to the claimant even before the restoration of the claim petition, the failure of the claimant to produce her evidence cannot be

condoned to provide her yet another opportunity of leading evidence, And that the Tribunal had not committed any error of law in rejecting her

claim petition on merits for her failure to produce evidence in support thereof.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and am of the view that affording of only one opportunity to the claimant to

lead evidence in support of her claim may not serve the ends of. justice additionally because I do not see any reason to disbelieve the appellant's

learned counsel who has explained the reason because of which he could not inform the claimant, who had gone to her parental house in Himachal

Pradesh.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal appears to have dismissed the appellant's claim petition hurriedly, without

affording sufficient opportunity to the claimant to substantiate her claim.

It is, therefore, considered just and proper to afford yet another opportunity to the appellant to substantiate her claim before the Tribunal.

Accordingly, setting aside order dated 16.09.2005 of the Claims Tribunal, appellant's claim petition is revived for Tribunal's fresh consideration

after affording sufficient time to the claimant to substantiate her claim.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jammu on July 3, 2009.