Sneh Lata and Others vs Dalip Singh Anand and Others

G.D. Sharma, J.—Through the medium of this appeal, the order dated 31.5.1996 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Kathua in claim petition No. 88 of 1993 has been challenged whereby he had summarily dismissed the claims of the appellants

herein on the ground that they had failed to lead evidence to prove who was the owner and who was the driver of the offending vehicle. On

11.9.1996, when this appeal was admitted brother Khan, J. had issued notice to respondent No. 1 only as he has been arraigned as the owner of

the offending vehicle in question. Mr. Sunil Sethi has appeared as his counsel and admits that respondent No. 1 is the owner of the offending

vehicle.

Heard the arguments.

The counsel for respondent No. 1 has admitted that respondent No. 2 was the driver of the offending vehicle. From the perusal of the claim

petition, it transpires that the petitioners herein had impleaded Parveen Singh as the owner and Harbans Singh as driver of the offending vehicle,

During the proceeding Parveen Singh had died and in his place his son, namely, Dalip Singh was substituted as the legal representative. In terms of

order dated 13.5.1994, he was proceeded ex parte. Respondent No. 2 was also proceeded ex parte. The insurer respondent No. 3 had filed the

objections wherein plea was taken that the petition was collusive and that respondent No. 2 was not possessing valid driving licence and the

insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured.

So far as the legal aspect of the case is concerned Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act casts a duty on the Claims Tribunal to hold enquiry

into the claims and determine the just compensation specifying the person or persons to whom the compensation shall be paid and specify the

amount which shall be paid by the insurer or the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. The impugned award ex facie reveals that

no such attempt was made, but in a casual and perfunctory manner the claims of the victims of the accident in question were thrown over board by

taking a plea that the owner and driver of the vehicle were not known.

It is not known how the learned Presiding Officer had arrived at such a conclusion when the unrebutted averments of the petitioners herein in the

claim petition were that Parveen Singh (predecessor of respondent No. 1) and respondent No. 2, namely, Harbans Singh were respectively the

owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. Also, there was a copy of the insurance policy on the record which specifically named the deceased

Parveen Singh Anand as the insured person and the insurance was in respect of the offending vehicle. Further, there was the certified copy of the

final report submitted by the police after the completion of investigation wherein it was alleged that respondent No. 2 herein (Harbans Singh) was

the driver of the offending vehicle who by his rash and negligent driving had caused the death of the deceased. He was facing trial before the

Munsiff Judicial Magistrate, Hiranagar for the commission of offences under Sections 279/337 read with Section 304-A I.P.C. The reason given in

the impugned order that when respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (owner and driver respectively) remained absent and were proceeded ex parte, it was

incumbent upon the petitioners to lead evidence to prove as to who was the owner and driver of the offending vehicle on the relevant date is not

sound legal reasoning because the unrebutted allegations of the claim petition as well as the entries made in the insurance policy and the findings of

the final report of the investigation were there and mere absence of the owner or the driver would not have obliterated this piece of evidence. Not

only that, the Presiding Officer u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act was duty bound to determine the just compensation specifying the person or

persons to whom the compensation was to be paid and to specify the amount which shall be paid and also who had to pay it whether the insurer or

the owner or the driver. The learned Presiding Officer instead of discharging his statutory functions scuttled the proceedings en route and such an

approach was against the aims and objects of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is reiterated that the Act has been enacted to ameliorate the suffering of

the victims of the road accidents and mere technicalities or procedural wrangles have no role to play. In this view of the matter, the impugned order

has been found not only illegal, but perverse also which has caused miscarriage of justice. The appeal is accordingly accepted and the impugned

order is set aside. The counsel appealing for the parties are directed to cause the appearance of their clients before the learned Presiding Officer,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kathua on 29.9.1997 who shall decide the petition within four months thereafter. Mr. Sethi undertakes that the

owner will file written statement on that day. Fresh process be issued against other two respondents. The office is directed to send back the record

immediately.