Seema Pawan Jain and Others vs Salmankhan and Others

N.K. Patil, J.—This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 11th March 2014, passed in MVC No. 398/2013, by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and I Additional District Judge, Mysore, (for short, ''Tribunal''), awarding compensation of Rs. 21,92,000/- with 6% interest per annum, and directing the respondents No. 1 and 2, i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle to indemnify the award amount with interest. Bemg aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal, on the ground that the same is inadequate and not commensurate with the source of income of the deceased and also the direction issued to the respondents 1 and 2 for indemnifying the award, the claimants have presented this appeal.

On account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, the claimants, who are none other than the wife and minor child of the deceased filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 94.45 lakhs against the driver, owner and Insurer of the offending vehicle. .... The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 11th March, 2014. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 21,92,000/- with 6% interest per annum, and directed the driver and owner of the offending to indemnify the entire award amount with interest. Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by Tribunal as also the direction issued by the Tribunal to the respondents 1 and 2, i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively to indemnify the award, the claimants have filed this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation and also to set aside the direction issued to respondents 1 and 2 to indemnify the award.

We have gone through the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal filed by claimants/appellants and heard the learned senior counsel appearing for appellants and learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, for quite some time.

Shri. M. Babu, learned counsel appearing for appellants at the outset vehemently submitted that due to communication gap and also inadvertence, the learned counsel appearing for appellants did not produce the endorsement dated 30th May 2014 issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Mandya, DL extract of Driver issued by the Licencing Authority, Mandya and also the estimate prepared by Dyuthi Motors Pvt. Ltd. Mysore for proper adjudication of the case before the Tribunal. The said three documents have been now produced before this Court by filing I.A. No. 1/2014. The said IA. No. 1/2014 is allowed and the counsel appearing for the appellants is permitted to produce the said three documents before the Tribunal. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal be set aside, by allowing this appeal and the matter be remanded back to the jurisdictional Tribunal to reconsider the same afresh after hearing opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel appearing for Insurer also and directing the Tribunal to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, having regard to the fact that it is the case of death of deceased and the claimants are none other than the wife and minor child.

As against this, learned counsel appearing for third respondent/Insurer inter alia sought to substantiate the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, stating that the same is passed after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and interference in the same is unwarranted. However, in view of allowing the I.A. No. 1/2014, seeking permission for production of additional documents, he fairly submitted that, appropriate orders be passed, directing the Tribunal to reconsider the matter afresh and to decide the matter in accordance with law.

After careful consideration of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perusal of the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, it emerges that occurrence of accident at about 5:00 P.M. on 03-01-2013 and the resultant death of deceased Pawan Bakliwal, who was husband of first appellant and father of second appellant are not in dispute.

It is submitted that due to inadvertence and communication gap and also not being acquainted with the consequences of not assisting the Court properly, the necessary documents could not be produced before the Tribunal for proper adjudication of the case and the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis of the available material and allowed the claim petition, awarding compensation and directing the driver and owner of the offending vehicle to indemnify the award amount with interest, jointly and severally. If these three documents had been produced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal ought not to have passed the impugned judgment and award.

After hearing the learned counsel appearing for appellants, we find some substance in the same. In view of allowing the I.A. No. 1/2014, by a separate order, permitting the appellants to produce the three documents, viz. the endorsement dated 30th May 2014 issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Mandya, DL extract of Driver issued by the Licencing Authority, Mandya and also the estimate prepared by Dyuthi Motors Pvt. Ltd. Mysore, we are of the view that, the matter is required to be remanded to Tribunal for consideration afresh.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, it would suffice for this Court if appropriate direction is issued to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, to meet the ends of justice and to safeguard the interest of the parties, having regard to the fact that the claimants are none other than the wife and minor child of the deceased.

In the light of the discussion made above, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed.

The impugned judgment and award dated 11th March 2014, passed in MVC No. 398/2013, by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and I Additional District Judge, Mysore, is hereby set aside;

The matter stands remanded back to Tribunal for reconsideration of the matter afresh and to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, personally or through their counsel and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months from the date of appearance of parties;

All the parties are directed to appear before the jurisdictional Tribunal on 28-04-2015, at 11:00 A.M. personally or through their counsel, to enable them to take further dates of hearing, as requested.

Parties are permitted to file necessary application/s, for adducing additional evidence, oral/documentary, to substantiate their respective cases within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

In case such application/s is/are filed by the learned counsel for the parties, within the time stipulated above, the Tribunal is directed to receive the same and proceed further and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, in compliance of the direction given by this Court, as above;

Registry is directed to return the entire original records, if any, received to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.

In case, the learned counsel appearing for appellants files a memo for return of the additional documents produced along with L.A. No. 1/2014, Registry is directed to return the same, forthwith.

All the contentions urged by all the parties are left open.

In view of remand of matter, I.A. No. 1/2015 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of as having become infructuous.