AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.V.Anjaria, J
Heard learned advocate Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi for the petitioners.
1.1 As far as respondent Nos.1.1 and 1.2 are concerned, the respondent No.1.2 has been served. The respondent No.1.1 happens to be the wife of
the original opponent No.1 and mother of opponent No.1/2. Since the son â€" opponent No.1/2 is on record as the heir of the opponent No.1/1, no
further steps are required to be taken in that regard. Thus, the respondent No.1.2 is served, but has not chosen to appear. In the same way, the
respondent No.2 â€" insurance company has also been served with the rule, but has not opted to file its appearance. The respondents, thus, though
served with the rule, have not chosen to appear.
The present Special Civil Application is directed against the order dated 18.8.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main),
Panchmahals at Godhra, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1330 of 2010. By the impugned order, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dismissed
the claim petition of the petitioner herein on the ground that the applicant failed to lead evidence in his claim petition.
It appears that pursuant to the accident occurred on 26.9.2010, the husband of the respondent No.1.1 and the father of the respondent No.1.2 died
while going in rickshaw Chhakda No.GJ.17.U.7782 as it turned turtle due to alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the rickshaw. In the claim
petition filed, it was recorded, that opponent No.1/1 and opponent No.2 did not appear.
3.1 While dismissing the claim petition, the Tribunal observed that the claimants failed to produce the documents such as licence, registration book, etc.
and did not lead evidence despite the fact that they were given opportunity for the same. Another aspect was noted that for the very cause of death,
another Motor Accident Claim Petition No.707 of 2010 was filed before the Tribunal at Dahod and the same was pending. It was stated that the said
Motor Accident Claim Petition No.707 of 2010 was filed by the mother of the deceased.
In course of hearing, learned advocate for the petitioners fairly submitted that two claim petitions at a simultaneous stretch cannot be maintained
and Motor Accident Claim Petition No.707 of 2010 would have to be withdrawn. This submission reflects the correct position of law.
4.1 As far as the dismissal of the instant Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1330 of 2010 is concerned, it was submitted that the claimants were
present before the Tribunal and also executed the affidavit. It was submitted that the applicants are ready to appear and lead their evidence.
The approach of the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition on the mere ground of absence of the applicant on a particular day could not be
justified. Rights of the litigant, more particularly those who are claimant in the Motor Accident Claim Petition, may not be destroyed by adopting
technical approach. The claim proceedings arise out of beneficial piece of legislation. The applicants ought to have been granted opportunity to contest
their claim petition on merits by the Tribunal.
The impugned order dated 18.8.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahals at Godhra, in Motor Accident Claim
Petition No.1330 of 2010 fails to sustain. The same is hereby set aside.
6.1 The Tribunal shall proceed with the hearing of Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1330 of 2010 on merits in accordance with law extending
opportunity to all the parties to lead evidence and may complete the proceedings within period of six months.
6.2 The petitioners have assured that they will cooperate in the proceedings.
Petition stands allowed and accordingly disposed of.