Sh. Naresh Kumar and Another vs Sh. Bhagirath and Another

Indermeet Kaur, J.—This petition has impugned the order dated 19.9.2008 vide which the objection of the Respondents that the present petition is not maintainable has been dismissed.

Record shows that the claimants Bhagirath and Asha Devi had instituted a claim petition seeking compensation for the death of their minor child. In the written statement the objection was that an earlier petition was filed by the claimant which had been dismissed on 13.11.2003 and this fact has not been brought to the notice of the court in the present petition; the present petition is barred.

The impugned order had dismissed this objection. Reliance had been placed upon a judgment of a Bench of Rajasthan High Court as also another Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court to support the stand that a hyper technical approach should not be adopted and a humane approach should in fact be adopted while dealing with motor accident claims.

The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal had been set up with the aim and object to dispense justice in a summary manner and to effectively and expeditiously dispose of claims made by the poor claimants who are accident victims; accident claimants as is a well recognized fact are also from the poor strata of the society who may not always be in a position to engage or afford a lawyer. It is also a fact that the strict rules of evidence are not applicable to claims which are ''enquired'' before the Accident Tribunals; procedure contemplated is an ''enquiry'' and not a trial. The underlying purpose is that innocent victims of road accident should not suffer for want of strict proof of the accident; drivers and owners should not be allowed to go scot-free. This is a beneficial legislation which has been engrafted in order that ''just compensation'' is paid as early as possible to such claimants.

The Claim Tribunals have been set up under Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Its procedure and powers are entailed in Section 169 of the Act; it contemplates an inquiry. The impugned order had correctly recorded that a hyper technical approached should not be adopted and merely because an earlier claim petition had also been preferred by the parents of the victim which fact had not been disclosed it would not be sufficient to oust the present claim petition. Impugned order suffers from No. infirmity. Dismissed.