Akan Chandra Das and Another vs Md. Hussain and Another

D.N. Chowdhury, J.—This is an application u/s 115 of the CPC challenging the validity of the orders dated 9.9.98 and 22.9.98 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang, Mangaldoi. The claim case is pending before the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which was registered as MAC case No. 91/96 at Darrang, Mangaldoi. From the order dated 9.9.98, it appears that the learned Member dismissed the claim case on the ground of alleged failure of the claimant in not taking steps, though the claimant in the petition has stated that steps have already been taken and requisite postal charge was filed to the Bench Assistant of the Tribunal. The claims Tribunal u/s 165 of the MV Act is to adjudicate upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to persons or damage arising out of the motor vehicle or both the application for claim u/s 166 of the Act and award compensation if it appears to be just Section 140 of the Act has created liability on the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation in respect of disablement in certain cases on the principle of no fault liability as a measure of social justice and keeping in mind the responsibility of the society on the death and injury caused in a road accident. The act prescribes the qualification for appointment of a member of the claims Tribunal, so that effective justice is made between the parties.

In the instant case, instead of adjudication the claim, the learned member, Motor Accident claims Tribunal took a rigid stand over looking the spirit of the statue, dismissed the claim case on the alleged ground under the circumstances, the orders of the learned MACT dt. 9.9.98 as well as dt. 22.9.98 are hereby set aside and the learned MACT is directed to restore the claim cause to file and to dispose of the claim case accordingly as early as possible. Mr. Narayan Chakravarty, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that vehicle is insured and is required to be impleaded on causing necessary enquiry as required by Section 170 of the MV Act. This can be effectively dealt with by the court i.e. the MACT as per law.

Revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.