Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 772 (GAU)

Jamuna Debbarma v. Radheshyam Das

2009-11-05

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant as well as Mr. A. Lodh, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, i.e., the National Insurance Company Ltd. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura Agartala dated 25.1.2007 passed in T.S. (MAC) No. 283 of 2006, which reads as follows: Learned Counsel for the O.P. filed memo of appearance. No step from the side of the claimant. Today is the date fixed for evidence but claimant remained absent without taking stop. On perusal of the record it is revealed that on the previous date also the claimant remained absent and such conduct on the part of the claimant leads to interference that he has no interest in the matter of compensation on account of injury sustained by him in a vehicular accident. As the claimant fails to prove his case by adducing evidence either oral or documentary, despite giving sufficient opportunities, I am of the view that he is not entitled to receive any compensation and I dispose of the case on merit. 3. Mr. A. Lodh, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2-Insurance Company, at the very outset of the argument, relying on the decision of this Court in Rocky Dev Burman vs. Lohit Prakash Dutta and another, 2006 (Suppl.) GLT 306 contended that a claim application seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be dismissed on default and, as such, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala rightly passed the impugned order dated 25.1.2007 for dismissing the Claim application [T.S. (MAC) No. 283 of 2006] on merit even though neither the appellant-claimant nor her Learned Counsel appeared before the claims tribunal for supporting her case. 4. Mr. P. Roy Barman, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant is not disputing the proposition of law asserted by Mr. A. Lodh, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2-Insurance Company that the application seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be dismissed on default inasmuch as there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act and/or Rules framed thereunder for dismissing a Claim application on default. He also relied on the decision of this Court in Binoy Kr. Banik vs. New India Assurance Co. 1997 (III) GLT 501, but the contention of Mr. He also relied on the decision of this Court in Binoy Kr. Banik vs. New India Assurance Co. 1997 (III) GLT 501, but the contention of Mr. Roy Barman, Learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant is that even though the tribunal could pass an appropriate order for disposing the claim application in absence of the claimant on merit, the tribunal in the name of passing appropriate order cannot dismiss the claim application by a cryptic order without any reason. 5. On bare perusal of the impugned order dated 25.1.2007 passed in T.S. (MAC) No. 283 if 2006, which has been quoted above in full, it appears that there is absolutely no reason for coming to the finding that the claimant is not entitled to any compensation save and except the conclusion and finding that the claimant had failed to prove her case by adducing evidence either oral or documentary evidence. 6. It is a cardinal principle of rule of law which governs our policy that the court including writ court is required to record reasons while disposing of a writ petition or/petition or/case in order to enable the litigants more particularly the aggrieved party to know the reasons which weighed with the mind of the court in determining the questions of facts and law raised in the writ petition or in the action brought. This is imperative for the fair and equitable administration or justice. More so when there is a statutory provision for appeal to the Higher Court in the hierarchy of courts in order to enable the superior court or the appellate court to know or to be apprised of the reasons which impelled the court to pass the order in question. This recording of reasons in deciding cases or application affecting rights of parties is also a mandatory requirement to be fulfilled in consonance with the principles of natural justice. (Ref. Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf vs. New Education Institute and other, AIR 1986 SC 2105 ). 7. In the case at hand, there is statutory provision for appeal against the impugned order dated 25.1.2007 to this Court. In the absence of the reasons in the impugned order dated 25.1.2007 this Court is in complete dark as to the reasons which impelled the learned trial court to pass the impugned order that the claimant is not entitled to receive any compensation. In the absence of the reasons in the impugned order dated 25.1.2007 this Court is in complete dark as to the reasons which impelled the learned trial court to pass the impugned order that the claimant is not entitled to receive any compensation. On perusal of the record, it appears that there ere materials in support of the claim for compensation made by the appellant-claimant in T.S. (MAC) No. 283 of 2006, but the learned trial court had not considered those materials in passing the impugned order dated 25.1.2007 inasmuch as there is absolutely no reason for not accepting the said materials in support of the claim application for compensation filed by the appellant-claimant. What is imperative under the cardinal principle of rule of law is that the order must in a nutshell record the relevant reasons which were taken into consideration by the court in coming to its final conclusion and in disposing of the petition, thereby enabling both the parties seeking justice as well as the superior court where an appeal lies to know the mind of the court as well as the reasons for its finding on question of law and facts in deciding the said petition or course. 8. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and other, AIR 1978 SC 851 held that where a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. The Apex Court Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR (39) 1952 SC 16 observed as follows: Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the order making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used to the order itself. 9. 9. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partern, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. This Court is not oblivious of its power that in any event, if there is abuse of power, the arms of the court are long enough to reach it and to strike it down (Ref. Smt. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1978 SC 597 ) (seven JJ) and also it is the obligation of the High Court to perform judicial justice to ensure that the cardinal principle of rule of law is followed in passing the orders by the court below. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 25.1.2007 is called for interference. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.1.2007 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) No. 283 of 2006 is set aside and the T.S. (MAC) No. 283 of 2006 is remanded to the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala for deciding afresh on merit after giving ample opportunities to the parties to prove their cases by adducing oral and documentary evidence. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala on 27.11.2009. It is made clear that the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala shall make an endeavor to dispose of this case as early as possible. 11. With the above observations and directions, this appeal is allowed. No costs. Send down the lower court record forthwith. The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to all the Tribunals in the State of Tripura. Appeal allowed.