JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mahboob Ali, J.—Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 2. This first appeal from order has been preferred by the claimant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) under Section 173, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, assailing the judgment and award dated 30.4.2012, passed by Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, Additional District Judge/Court No. 12, Kanpur Nagar/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in motor accident claim petition No. 235 of 2009 (Kr. Richa Prajapati v. Kishan Kumar Nigam and others) dismissing appellant’s claim petition. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.1.2009, the appellant Kr. Richa Prajapati, while going to Yashodha coaching, Kanpur Nagar to attend coaching classes by her Scooty No. UP-78/ A 7093, met with an accident. She was driving the scooty with her friend Kr. Anusha on pillion. As she reached in front of Kashi Nath Temple, an Alto Car No. UP-78/ AB 9025, being rashly and negligently driven by respondent No. 2 Ram Kishore dashed against her scooty as a result of which the appellant sustained serious injuries. An F.I.R was lodged and the case was registered at Police Station, Kidwai Nagar, at Crime No. 27 of 2009 under Section 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC. 4. The petition was contested by filing written statement by the owner of the vehicle in question as well as the Insurance Company. 5. Respondent No. 1 Kishan Kumar Nigam owner of the vehicle in his written statement alleged that the claimant was herself driving her vehicle very speedily and negligently and she collided with his vehicle which was being driven by the driver at a prescribed speed, his Alto Car No. UP 78 AB 9025 was duly insured at the time of the alleged accident and the driver was having a valid driving license. Thus, if any liability comes to pay the compensation that would be of the Insurance Company. 6. Respondent No. 3 National Insurance Company Limited filed its written statement alleging that the factum of the accident is denied. The driver of Scooty No. UP 78 A 7093 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the alleged accident and also there was not a valid registration and fitness etc. The driver of the Alto Car No. UP 78 AB 9025 was also not having a valid and effective driving license. The driver of Scooty No. UP 78 A 7093 was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the alleged accident and also there was not a valid registration and fitness etc. The driver of the Alto Car No. UP 78 AB 9025 was also not having a valid and effective driving license. Thus, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further alleged that if the insurance of Alto Car No. UP 78 AB 9025 is not found valid and effective at the time of the alleged accident and if there is a breach of any of the terms and conditions of a valid insurance policy or the mandatory provisions contained under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, the insurance company shall not be liable for payment of any compensation. The interest claimed at the rate of 12% p.a. is against the observations of the Supreme Court and the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and the same is not legally sustainable. The amount claimed is highly exaggerated and is totally imaginary without any legal basis. The Insurance Company is not liable for payment of any compensation as claimed and the petition being bad in law and on facts is liable to be dismissed. 7. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties the tribunal has framed followings issues for the determination. (i) Whether the accident took place on 17.1.2009 at 3.30 p.m. in front of Kashinath Mandir, Police Station-Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, at a time when the petitioner Richa, with her pillion friend, was going by Scooty No. UP 78 A 7093 and an Alto Car No. UP 78 AB 9025 which was being driven rashly and negligently, dashed against the scooty as a result of which petitioner sustained serious injuries ? (ii) Whether vehicle No. UP 78 AB 9025 was insured on the date of the accident ? (iii) Whether the driver of vehicle No. UP 78 AB 9025 was having a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident ? (iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any compensation, if yes, how much and from which party ? (v) Whether the accident was a result of contributory negligence, if yes, its effect ? 8. (iv) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get any compensation, if yes, how much and from which party ? (v) Whether the accident was a result of contributory negligence, if yes, its effect ? 8. It transpires from the impugned judgment that the petitioner/appellant and the Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence. The tribunal has observed that as per the averments of the petitioner, she met with an accident on 17.1.2009 at 3.30 p.m. regarding which Case Crime No. 27 of 2009 under Section 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC was registered, but the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence regarding the accident and her treatment in private nursing home and Regency Hospital, as alleged. Thus, for want of evidence the tribunal gave a finding that the accident did not take place on 17.1.2009 at 3.30 p.m. as alleged in the petition and the factum of the accident was not proved. Thus, with this conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition by the judgment and award dated 30.4.2012 against which the petitioner preferred this appeal on the following grounds : (i) The driver of the offending vehicle was caught by the local Police on the spot and an F.I.R was lodged at Case Crime No. 27 of 2009 under Section 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC. (ii) As a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant became permanently disabled upto 40% and she needs an attendant, permanently. (iii) The appellant has spent Rs. 3 lakhs for the treatment and requires further treatment. (iv) The appellant was preparing for MBA course but after the accident her entire career had been jeopardized. (v) The offending vehicle Alto Car No. UP 78 AB 9025 was duly insured and the driver of the said vehicle was having a valid driving license at the time of the accident, but even then the tribunal illegally dismissed the claim. (vi) The finding recorded by the Tribunal are wholly perverse, illegal and against the material evidence available on the record. (vii) The Tribunal failed to interpret the law in correct perspective as it did not consider the aspects such as future prospects and better career of the appellant. (viii) The Tribunal also failed to consider the pecuniary damages such as medical attendance and loss of earning etc. (vii) The Tribunal failed to interpret the law in correct perspective as it did not consider the aspects such as future prospects and better career of the appellant. (viii) The Tribunal also failed to consider the pecuniary damages such as medical attendance and loss of earning etc. and non- pecuniary damages such as physical and mental shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, inconvenience and hardships, frustration and mental stress etc. (ix) The tribunal has neither applied its judicial mind nor acted fairly and has failed to exercise its power in bona fide manner. (x) On account of her ill-health, the appellant could not appear before the tribunal to prove the accident and her counsel did not, deliberately, argue the case before the Tribunal. 9. Appellant challenged the impugned judgment on various scores. On the other hand, the learned counsel of the Insurance Company (respondent No. 3) sought to justify it contending that the appellant could not prove the factum of the accident. 10. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are mainly on two counts- one, that the tribunal failed to consider the important aspects such as medical expenses incurred in the treatment of the petitioner, loss of earning, loss in the future prospects of the petitioner, a young and educated lady and her sufferings in terms of pain and mental agony etc., and another that the tribunal did not apply the law in correct perspective by not providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. For the first part of his contention, learned counsel referred the law laid down in Lata Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197 , subsequently followed in Arun Kumar Agarwal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2010 (9) SCC 218 , in which income of a deceased lady/ mother, who had no regular income, was computed treating it as gratuitous service. He also referred the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.D. Hattangadi v. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1995 SC 755 , regarding the assessment of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. 12. The question of computation of income and assessment of damages arises only when the factum of accident is established, but in this case the tribunal has ruled that the accident has not been proved as the appellant has not adduced any evidence. 13. 12. The question of computation of income and assessment of damages arises only when the factum of accident is established, but in this case the tribunal has ruled that the accident has not been proved as the appellant has not adduced any evidence. 13. Thus, the main and sustainable contention of the learned counsel on behalf of appellant is that ample opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to the appellant. In this connection learned counsel took us to have perusal of the order sheets of the claim petition dated 10.4.2012, 21.4.2012 and 24.4.2012 to show the manner in which the case was proceeded. Perusal of these order sheets reveals as under : 14. On 10.4.2012, the petitioner/appellant was not present, the Tribunal framed a new issue relating to contributory negligence of the petitioner and fixed the matter for petitioner’s evidence on 21.4.2012. 15. On 21.4.2012 none of the parties turned up thus, petitioner’s evidence was closed and the case was fixed for the evidence of the other side on 24.4.2012. 16. On 24.4.2012 again no party responded, thus, the case was fixed for judgment and ultimately the impugned judgment was pronounced on 30.4.2012, whereby the petitioner’s claim was dismissed on the basis of no evidence. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal while dismissing the petition for want of evidence, has acted in an illegal and arbitrary manner by not providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/appellant. He further contended that since the claim tribunal works as a Civil Court while adjudicating upon a claim petition, in the petitioner’s absence and opposite party’s presence, the Tribunal should have proceeded under Order IX Rule 8 CPC. Learned counsel referred to Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 204-A (7) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 and Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These, provisions are reproduced, thus : Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 “169. Learned counsel referred to Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 204-A (7) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 and Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These, provisions are reproduced, thus : Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 “169. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunal (2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).” Rule 204-A (7) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 “(7) If statements of facts about the compensation claimed, has been furnished by the parties and subsequently commits default in appearance, the provisions of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would apply.” Order IX Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 “8. Procedure where defendant only appears—Where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed, unless the defendant admits the claim, or part thereof, in which case the Court shall pass a decree against the defendant upon such admission, and, where part only of the claim has been admitted, shall dismiss the suit so far as it relates to the remainder.” 18. By perusal of the order sheets referred to as above it is manifestly clear that the tribunal has not provided adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner rather it is a case of non-hearing. However, there is no denial to this fact that the petitioner/appellant has been careless in prosecuting the matter. But a very significant question here arises as to whether the doors of justice be shut to the appellant. Answer to this question can be had in the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others v. Satbir Singh and others, 2013 (14) SCC 345. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below. But a very significant question here arises as to whether the doors of justice be shut to the appellant. Answer to this question can be had in the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bimla Devi and others v. Satbir Singh and others, 2013 (14) SCC 345. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below. “[10] No doubt, it is true that claim case has not been contested in a proper and legal manner, but that should not be sufficient to throw the claim petition, so as to deny the Claimants of their just compensation. It is always desirable, rather a necessity in law, that the matter, as far as possible, be decided on merits and in accordance with law..........” “[11]............From the facts as unfolded hereinabove, it is clear that Appellants have been callous and negligent in prosecuting the matter and did not do so in right earnest. We cannot take a pendentic view of the matter so as to shut the doors of justice to the Appellants. Motor Vehicles Act is a social piece of legislation and has been enacted with intent and object to facilitate the Claimants/Victims to get redress for the loss of loosing of family member or for injuries at an early date. In any case, money cannot be any substitute for it, but in long run it may have some soothing effect. Thus, it is desirable to adopt a more realistic, pragmatic and liberal approach in these matters. In our considered opinion, interest of justice would be served and fully met if Appellants are afforded at least one more opportunity to prove their case to the satisfaction of the Claims Tribunal.” 19. Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the matter we are of the considered view that one more opportunity should be given to the appellant to enable her to prove the factum of the accident so that she may be able to get just, adequate and proper compensation in case she succeeds to establish the factum of accident to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. 20. In these circumstances, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the Tribunal to afford an opportunity to both the parties to lead their evidence. 21. 20. In these circumstances, we deem it fit and proper to remit the matter to the Tribunal to afford an opportunity to both the parties to lead their evidence. 21. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award dated 30.4.2012 passed by the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the appeal is accordingly allowed. Since the matter is old, the Tribunal would endeavor to dispose of the claim petition on merits and in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. No costs. Lower Court record be sent to the Tribunal immediately.