Arun Nayak vs Vijay Kumar & Anr.

G. Satapathy, J.

This is an appeal U/S.173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, “the Act”) by the claimant-appellant seeking to challenge the impugned judgment dated 26.09.2023 passed by learned 2^nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack (In short, “the Tribunal”) in Misc. Case No.315 of 2013 dismissing the claim application of the claimants with nil award.

The facts in background are that in an accident which took place on 19.03.2013 at about 11.00 AM, the claimant-Arun Nayak while going to SCBMCH, Cuttack by riding a Motor Cycle was allegedly hit by a Truck bearing Regd. No. BR-01-GB-9171(hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) causing serious injuries to him. An FIR being lodged on this accident came to be registered in Madhupatna PS Case No.22 of 2013 paving the way for commencement of investigation which ultimately resulted in submission of charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for rash and negligent driving. On a claim preferred by the claimant, the same was dismissed by the learned tribunal for want of evidence.

Heard, Mr. Kapila Charan Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bibekananda Udgata, learned counsel for R2 in the matter and perused the record, but none appears for R1 despite valid service of notice of Appeal.

It is not disputed that the learned tribunal by passing the following impugned judgment dismissed the claim of the Appellant with nil award:-

Admittedly, granting compensation to the victim of the accident is a social and beneficial provision of law and the procedure adopted for disposal of such claim is summary in nature, however, the tribunal should consider the claim of the claimant for grant of compensation by adopting a liberal approach, since the claimant is not only the victim of the motor vehicular accident, but also he suffers on account of such accident and the relevant provision of the Act intends to provide succor to the victim of such vehicular accident. What is important is that the claimant should not be deprived of compensation merely because he is not being able to tender any evidence, but at the same time, the claimant should be encouraged to lead evidence to prove his case before the tribunal.

Indisputably, the claimant in this case has taken several adjournments on one or some pretext, but he is ultimately the victim of the accident and thereby, taking a hyper-technical view would not sub-serve the substantial justice required to advance in such cases. It is also not in dispute that the appellant-claimant has filed this appeal with a delay of 56 days, but refusing the claim of the Appellant merely because there is a delay would not sub-serve the justice. In the circumstance and on consideration of the claim as raised by the claimant keeping in view the objective of the provision of law governing the accident claim case, this Court considers that the interest of justice would be best served, if the impugned order dismissing the claim of the claimant with nil award is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law, but at the same time, if the tribunal finds a case to award compensation to the claimant while disposing his claim application, it may take into consideration the period of delay and latches to be the ground for not awarding any interest during those period which was in fact acknowledged by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant.

In the result, the Appeal stands allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the learned tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law by issuing notice to R1-cum-owner of the offending vehicle. The parties are, however, directed to appear before the learned tribunal on 03.11.2026 for taking further instruction. Needless to say, the parties shall co-operate the tribunal for early disposal of the claim case which shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months w.e.f 03.11.2026, but such period of six months shall exclusive of the time required to notice R1-cum-owner of the offending vehicle.