Maya Devi and Others vs Jagdish Rai

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.—This appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.01.1997 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur (for short ''the Tribunal'') whereby the claim petition of the appellant has been dismissed. The case as set up in the claim petition was that on 04.01.1992, the tractor of deceased Raghbir Singh developed some problem. He went to Abohar in connection with its repair and contacted Kashmiri Lal, who was having a workshop near Police Station Abohar Sadar. The deceased along with Kashmiri Lal went to village Shivani and thereafter proceeded to Fazilka to purchase the tractor parts. They were on motorcycle bearing Registration No. PJF-4747 and when they reached near octroi post a truck bearing registration No. DEL 2870 came from behind and hit the motorcycle resulting in injuries to Kashmiri Lal and Raghbir Singh (since deceased). Raghbir Singh suffered multiple injuries and was initially admitted to Civil Hospital Fazilka from where he was referred to CMC, Ludhiana. He died on 26.01.1992. FIR No. 1 dated 04.01.1992 was registered at the instance of Kashmiri Lal at Police Station City Fazilka.

The appellants being the legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petition. In support of their claim, the claimants examined AW-1 Devinder Kumar son of the deceased, AW-2 MHC Harjit Singh, who proved copy of the FIR under Sections 279/338 of IPC registered at Police Station City Fazilka, AW-3 Janak Raj Chawla Record Keeper, Sessions Record Room Ferozepur who proved copy of the statement of Kashmiri Lal (Ex. A-2) whereby he entered into a compromise with respondents after accepting Rs. 20,000/-. AW-3 also proved copy of the order dated 30.08.1995 (Ex. A-3) passed by the Tribunal, whereby the claim petition filed by Kashmiri Lal was dismissed as withdrawn on account of compromise. In addition to the above, the claimants had also summoned Dr. G.S. Randhawa, CMC Ludhiana along with the record/postmortem report of the deceased and Kashmiri Lal-eye witness and the person, who was driving the motorcycle. The Tribunal vide order dated 27.01.1997 closed the evidence of the claimants/appellants under Order 17 Rule 3 and Section 35(b) of the CPC and proceeded to dispose of the claim petition.

The Tribunal held that the appellants had only examined one of the claimants Devinder Kumar, who was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. It further held that merely registration of FIR is not sufficient to fix liability of the respondents, which could only be proved by direct evidence. It further held that the compromise entered into by Kashmiri Lal with the respondents would also not prove the factum of rashness and negligence of respondent No. 1 especially when neither Kashmiri Lal nor the respondents had appeared before the Tribunal. Resultantly, the claim petition was dismissed.

Counsel for the appellants has stated that a perusal of the zimni orders would reveal that sufficient opportunity had not been granted to the appellants to lead evidence. He has submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have proceeded strictly as per provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, that the proceedings before it being summary in nature and taking into account the object and purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal ought to have granted one more opportunity to the appellants in the interest of justice, especially, when two witnesses had already been produced and examined. In order to substantiate the aforesaid contention, counsel for the appellants had reproduced in the grounds of appeal the application moved by the appellants for summoning the witnesses and the various zimni orders passed by the Tribunal. The said applications and zimni orders are reproduced as under:

"Application for summoning the following witnesses through the process of the Court.

Sir,

The claimant submits as under:

That the above noted claim application is pending in this Hon''ble Court and the same is fixed for evidence for 29.10.1996.

That the claimant wants to summon the following witnesses through the process of Court and she is ready to deposit process fee and diet money for the same:-

i) MHC, of PS City Fazilka alongwith Record FIR No. 1/1992 U/s. 279/338 IPC.

ii) Dr. G.S. Randhawa, Christian Medical College Ludhiana alongwith the record/Post Mortem report of Raghbir Singh s/o. Mani Ram r/o. Village Shiwana @ Jhuggian, Teh Fazilka, District Ferozepore conducted on 27.1.92.

iii) Kashmiri Lal s/o. Karam Chand r/o. Gali No. 1, Anand Nagari, Abohar, District Ferozepur.

iv) Record Keeper, Sessions Courts, Ferozepur along with original file case titled as Kashmiri Lal vs. Jagdish Rai, Claim application decided on 30.08.1995, by the Court of Shri Behari Lal, 1st ADJ/MACT, Ferozepur.

That it is necessary to summon the above said witnesses for the just and proper decision of the above noted claim application.

It is, therefore, prayed, that the above said witnesses may kindly be summoned for the date fixed.

The following order was passed by the Tribunal on 29.10.1996:-.

Present: Sh. K.B. Rajesh, counsel for the Claimants.

Sh. A.S. Kamboj, counsel for the respondent No. 2.

No. A.W. is present. Counsel for the claimant requests for adjournment which is granted subject to payment of Rs. 100/- as costs. To come up on 30.11.96 for evidence of the claimants at own responsibility. Another last opportunity is granted.

Sd/- MACT 24.10.96

That on the adjourned date of hearing i.e. 30.11.96 statement of summoned witness AW 2 Mahabir Head Constable, and AW 3 Record Keeper of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ferozepur was recorded and the case was adjourned to 27.1.97, the following order was passed:-

Present: Sh. K.B. Rajesh, counsel for the Claimants.

Sh. A.S. Kamboj, counsel for the respondent No. 2.

Statement of AW 2 M.H. Charjit Singh and AW 3 Janak Raj recorded. No other AW is present adjournment is requested which is granted subject to payment of Rs. 200/- as costs. AWs be summoned for 27.1.97 on filling of P.F. Dasti summons be given as prayed for claimants be produced on the date fixed.- MACT 30.11.96.

That on the adjourned date of hearing i.e. 27.1.97, the following order was passed by the Tribunal:

Present: Sh. K.B. Rajesh, counsel for the Claimants.

Sh. A.S. Kamboj, counsel for the respondent No. 2.

No AW present. On 30.11.96 the claimant have been granted another opportunity subject to payment of costs of Rs. 200/-. Neither the claimant nor their witnesses are present nor the costs have been paid today. The request for another adjournment has been made by learned counsel for the claimants but the same is declined and the evidence of the claimants is closed by order under order 17 Rule 3 and Section 35-B of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned counsel for respondent Jagdish Rai closed the evidence on behalf of the respondent Jagdish Rai Arguments heard to come up for orders after lunch.

Sd/- MACT 27.1.97.

27.1.97, present as before vide my separate detailed judgment of even date the application is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Memo of costs be prepared file be consigned the recorded. Announced in open Court.

Sd/- MACT 27.1.97.

The claim application was dismissed as such on the same day.

From the above proceedings it is clear that on 4.10.1996 an application was moved by the appellants for summoning four witnesses as the case was fixed for evidence on 29.10.1996. On 29.10.1996 no AW was present and a request for adjournment was made by counsel for the appellants which was granted subject to payment of costs of Rs. 100/- and the case was adjourned to 30.11.1996. On 30.11.1996 statement of summoned witness AW 2 MHC Harjit Singh and AW 3 Record Keeper of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Ferozepur was recorded and the case was adjourned to 27.1.1997. The adjournment was granted subject to payment of Rs. 200/- as costs. The remaining AWs were ordered to be summoned for 27.1.1997 on filling of P.F. Dasti summons be given as prayed for.

On 27.1.1997 after recording that neither the appellant nor their witnesses was present and that on 30.11.1996 the appellant had been granted another opportunity subject to payment of costs of Rs. 200/- the Tribunal declined the request for another adjournment and by order under order 17 Rule 3 and Section 35-B of the Civil Procedure Code closed the evidence of the appellants and dismissed the claim petition.

A perusal of the above proceedings reveals that the Ld. Tribunal has treated the proceedings as a strict trial under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Tribunal has given no latitude to the fact that under the statute wide powers have been bestowed on the Tribunal to hold an inquiry into the claim and for that it may adopt such summary procedure as it may think fit. It has proceeded in the matter with a typical civil court approach an approach which is not appropriate in the context of deciding claim petitions preferred by poor illiterate claimants and the social purpose which the Motor Vehicles Act is intended to achieve.

In this case, appellant had examined certain witnesses. The remaining witnesses were ordered to be summoned on payment of PF. There is nothing on record that the PF had not been deposited. If despite summons a material witness did not appear the Tribunal had adequate power to secure the presence of the witness which ought to have been used.

It is trite that rules of procedure are mere handmaids of justice. Procedure is meant to secure justice and not to impede justice. At the altar of procedure, valuable substantive rights of the parties should not be sacrificed.

I am conscious of the long lapse of time as the accident is of the year 1992. But none the less, even at this late stage, an attempt must be made to ensure that justice is done to the appellants. Accordingly the impugned order dated 27.1.1997 closing the evidence of the appellants and the impugned award are set aside. The case is remanded to the Tribunal for decision afresh. The appellants shall be given further opportunity by the Tribunal to lead evidence and produce their witnesses.

The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 21.7.2014.