Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1110 (MP)

Bhikamprasad v. Devchand

2010-11-09

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2010
ORDER 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimants against the award dated 28.8.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Biaora, District Rajgarh in Claim Case No. 207/2002. 2. One Adeshkumar had died in the road motor accident which had taken place on 19.7.2001, therefore, the appellants who are the dependents of the deceased had filed the claim petition before the Trib4nal. The Tribunal held that no statement of eye witness of the accident was recorded, therefore, it was not proved that Adeshkumar had died in the motor accident. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the claim petition without examining the other issues. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition. He further submitted that adequate opportunity was not given to the appellants to produce the evidence of the eye witnesses, therefore, the impugned award of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal for giving adequate opportunity to produce the relevant evidence. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company, supporting the award, submitted that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition since on the basis of the evidence on record, the accident in question was not proved. 5. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 6. The record indicates, that the appellants had filed the application dated 26.6.2004 before the Tribunal seeking an opportunity to produce the evidence of the eye witnesses. The said application was rejected by the Tribunal on 19.8.2004 on the technical ground that the provision under which the said application was filed was not applicable. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that it was benevolent legislation and strict rules of CPC and evidence do not apply and even otherwise the procedure prescribed in the CPC is meant for doing substantial justice to the parties and not for denying the justice on the basis of mere technicalities. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that it was benevolent legislation and strict rules of CPC and evidence do not apply and even otherwise the procedure prescribed in the CPC is meant for doing substantial justice to the parties and not for denying the justice on the basis of mere technicalities. Since the claim petition of the appellants has been rejected solely on the ground that he had not produced the eye witness of the accident and had not established that the death was caused in the road motor accident as pleaded, without giving adequate opportunity to the appellant to adduce adequate evidence on this issue and without appreciating that the appellants were making an effort to bring on record the evidence of the eye witnesses, therefore, it is found just and proper to give an opportunity to the appellants to produce the relevant witnesses in order to establish the claim, hence a case for remand is made out. 7. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the impugned award of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for afresh adjudication after giving an opportunity to all the parties to lead further relevant evidence. Let the original record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 15th December, 2010.