Anita Devi and Others vs Satpal and Another

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—The petitioners (claimants) have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 4.10.2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal)'' dismissing the application of the petitioners for producing additional evidence.

I have heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, on account of the death of Rati Ram, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide Award dated 22.4.2005, while holding that the petitioners failed to prove that the accident in question did occur due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 Sat Pal, driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Jeep bearing registration No. HR-30A-8963. While dismissing the claim petition, the Tribunal did not assess the amount of compensation on issue No. 2, as the claim petition was dismissed on the aforesaid issue No. 1 regarding negligence.

On appeal by the petitioners, the Award dated 22.4.2005, passed by the Tribunal, was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to decide the case afresh and to record findings on issue No. 2 with regard to the quantum of compensation. After remand, when the matter was pending before the Tribunal, the petitioners-claimants moved an application for leading additional evidence to prove the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The said application has been dismissed on the ground that since this Court has remanded the matter only to record the finding on issue No. 2 therefore, no fresh evidence can be permitted to be adduced by the claimants with regard to issue No. 1 at this stage. Against that order, this petition has been filed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that once the Award, passed by the Tribunal, was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded to decide the claim petition afresh, then the Tribunal is to decide the claim petition afresh and to record fresh findings on all the issues. He further submits that if, it was not the intention of this Court to decide all the issues afresh, then there was no need to set aside the impugned Award and remand the matter. If it would have been the intention of this Court to affirm the findings on issue No. 1, then in that eventuality, the claim petition would have been dismissed. Therefore, while remanding the matter after setting aside the Award passed by the Tribunal, the intention of this Court was that the Tribunal should decide the matter afresh on the basis of evidence available on record. In that situation, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be allowed to lead evidence to prove that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Sat Pal-respondent No. 1, driver of the offending vehicle.

After hearing the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties, I find force in the Submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioners. In this case, initially, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the petitioners on issue No. 1 while holding that the accident in question was not caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Against the said Award, an appeal was filed, which was allowed by this Court and the Award passed by the Tribunal was set aside, while remanding the matter to the Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh. It was observed that the matter is remanded to the Tribunal to enable it to record findings on issue No. 2, but from the reading of the order passed by this Court, it appears that the Award passed by the Tribunal was set aside and the Tribunal was directed to decide the matter afresh after recording the finding on issue No. 2. If the intention of this Court was to affirm the finding of issue No. 1, then there was no need to remand the matter, because in that situation, the claim petition was to be dismissed. Therefore, while remitting the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to decide it afresh, the intention of this Court was that the claim petition be decided afresh on all the issues, including issue No. 1. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 that after the remand, the Tribunal is not required to take a fresh decision on issue No. 1.

In this case, one person has died and the claimants are the legal heirs of the de-ceased. This Court has already set aside the impugned Award passed by the Tribunal and has remanded the matter to decide afresh. When after remand, the matter is pending for fresh decision, in my opinion, the petitioners-claimants should be provided full opportunity to prove their case by leading evidence to the effect that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. A liberal approach should be adopted for giving opportunity to the claimants to prove factum of the accident as well as negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, because the Motor Vehicles Act is a social legislation and the claimants, who have already suffered because of the death of their bread earner, should not suffer more.

Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and in the interest of justice, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are permitted to lead additional evidence to prove that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal is also directed to record fresh findings on all the issues on the basis of evidence available on the record.