Smt. Burmi and Another vs Tej Bhan and Others

N.K. Kapoor, J.—Smt. Burmi wd/o Bhim Singh, Krishan Kumar, minor son, and Smt. Darboo, mother of Bhim Singh deceased, filed a petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, at Karnal. As per averments given in the petition, it was stated that Bhim Singh was driving the cycle and was going from Pati Kalyana to Bus Stand Samalkha and when he reached near the petrol pump, a truck bearing No. HRG 8027 came from the side of Pati Kalyana which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner struck by the side of the cyclist and in the process even the truck was turned turtle and so Bhim Singh was crushed by the fall of the truck. Bhim Singh died at the spot. One Mahabir s/o Ram Dia resident of Manana saw the whole occurrence who informed the police of Samalkha and first information report was duly lodged. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

In pursuance to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent Nos. 1 and 3 filed separate written statement. Besides controverting the averments made in the petition on merits, raised preliminary objection in the nature of locus standi; proper Court Fee having not been affixed; petition being bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and disclosing no cause of action.

The Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1/ Whether the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving while driving truck No. HRG 8027 by respondent No. 2?OPP.

2/ To what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled and from whom ?

3/Relief.

The case was fixed for evidence of the claimants on 21.5.1984 but the same was not taken up on account of the Presiding Officer being on leave and so the same was put up for proper order on 22.5.84. On that date the case was adjourned for evidence of the petitioners to 22.8.1984. Since no evidence was present nor summoned, the adjournment was granted for adducing evidence subject to payment of Rs. 20/-. On the next date of hearing also, neither the witnesses came present nor were summoned. In fact, petitioner also did not put in appearance. So another opportunity was granted to the petitioner on payment of costs. On the next date of hearing, whereas the cost was paid yet no evidence was adduced by the petitioners. The Tribunal in the interest of justice granted one more opportunity subject to payment of Rs. 70/- as costs. At the adjourned hearing, no PW was present or had been summoned. Even the claimants did not come present and so the evidence was closed. Since there was no proof on record with regard to the negligence of the driver, the petition was dismissed.

The appellants in the grounds of appeal have tried to explain the reason for this lapse. As averred by the appellant, she is an illiterate, young pardanashin lady who in turn is dependent on her illiterate mother-in-law. The other claimant admittedly is a minor. It so happened that appellant No. 1 herself fell sick and remained bed ridden for about a week and in these circumstances her mother-in-law also could not leave the house. Subsequently, on or about 6.12.84 her mother-in-law Smt. Darboo fell sick who ultimately expired on December 30,1984. Since her last rites were to be performed, so the appellant could not leave the house and for these reasons even could not contact her counsel at Karnal. It is only in the second week of February, 1985, that the appellant learnt that her petition for compensation had been dismissed in default on 1.12.1984. It is thereafter she applied for certified copies and thereafter approached this Court for setting aside the impugned order/judgment of the Tribunal and prayed for hearing of the petition on merits by the Tribunal. In support of her contention, Smt. Burmi has placed on record a duly sworn affidavit as well as certificate from the doctor who attended her during her ailment.

There is no denying the fact that there has been some lapse on the part of the appellants in not even informing their counsel of the reasons which prevented them from attending the Court on the date when their evidence was to be recorded. But all the same, reasons assigned by the appellants appear to be quite genuine. Presumably, illiterate village folks are not aware of the severe legal implications on account of their absence on a particular date of hearing. They some how assume (though wrongly) that once a case has been entrusted to an Advocate, especially the one pertaining to award of compensation (as in the instant case) the Court has merely to assess the compensation since the accident has already been admitted by the other side. In the instant case, the claimants in support of their pleas placed on record a copy of the post mortem report as well as copy of the first information report recorded at police station, Samalkha. The first information report, prima facie, give the version as set up by the claimants. In the circumstances, the Tribunal on its own ought to have perused this document which prima facie prove the case of the claimants. Even the reply filed by respondent No. 1 to para 24 of the claim petition almost reiterates the broad facts of the case i.e. Bhim Singh lost his life on account of this accident. It has also been admitted by respondent No. 1 that the truck in question turned turtle. However, he tried to justify his position by stating that, in fact, the deceased ought to have been more careful.

In the present case, the Tribunal framed the issues and once the issues are framed it is incumbent upon the Tribunal to record its findings thereon. The Act and the Rules enjoins a duty upon the Tribunal to hold an enquiry into the claim. After admission of a claim petition, in fact, there is no scope for dismissal of such a claim petition in default. In any case, the Tribunal has taken rather a strict view in the matter on account of which a legitimate relief to the dependants of the person who met with fatal accident has been declined. The Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial legislation its provisions ought to be construed more liberally. Resultantly, I accept the appeal, set aside the order/judgment of the Tribunal and remand the case for a fresh decision on merits. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, on 20.5.1993. Since the accident took place on 12.6.1983 i.e. about 9-3/4 years ago, the Tribunal will take appropriate steps to dispose of the case expeditiously preferably within six months. No costs.