Meenaben Rameshbhai Rathod vs Vinaybhai Roopsing Gamit and Another

R.P. Dholaria, J.—The appellant has, by way of preferring present appeal, challenged the judgment and award dated 7th January 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux), FTC No. 2, Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as ''the learned Tribunal'') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 980 of 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ''the claim petition''). Briefly stated the appellant had filed a claim petition under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by her in vehicular accident. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition under judgment and award dated 7th January 2008. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, the appellant has preferred present appeal.

Heard Mr. K.R. Joshi, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. S.B. Parikh, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 - Insurance Company.

Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition solely on the ground of non-joinder of principal tortfeasor i.e. driver of the vehicle viz. Mr. Mukesh Chunilal Chaudhari as a party opponent and therefore the judgment and award may be quashed and set aside. Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the appellant has also submitted that the matter may be remanded back to decide afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity to all the parties.

On the other hand, Mr. Parikh, learned advocate for the insurance company has submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the claim petition preferred by the present appellant and therefore the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Mr. Parikh has also submitted that he has no objection if the matter may be remanded back to the learned Tribunal for deciding afresh in accordance with law.

In view of the aforesaid factual position, it emerges from the record that the claim petition has been dismissed solely on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party and also issue of quantum of compensation and other issues have not been decided by the learned Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for both the parties have agreed to remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity to all the parties. Even otherwise also to arrive at just compensation, the matter is required to be considered by the learned Tribunal itself. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court has no option but to remand the matter back to the learned Tribunal for deciding afresh in accordance with law. Therefore, it appears just and proper to quash and set aside the judgment and award dated 7th January 2008 passed by the learned Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 980 of 2003 and remand the matter back for de novo trial. The petitioner is directed to join the driver i.e. Mukesh Chunilal Chaudhary as opponent in the claim petition within a period of one month. The Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petition afresh in accordance with law and after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties at the earliest and preferably within a period of six months. R & P may be transmitted back to the learned Tribunal.

With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of.