NACHARAMMA Vs. CHAIRMAN MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, dt.29th January 1968, made in Misc. Case No.461 of 1964 by which the said Tribunal rejected the petitioner's application for compensation on the ground that her application does not disclose any cause of action.

(2.) The petitioner's husband died in a motor accident on 12th March, 1964, and she made an application for compensation claiming a sum of Rs. 20,000 from respondents 2 to 4. Respondent 2 was the driver of the Bus No.MYD3349 belonging to the 3rd respondent the Hindustan Aircraft Limited, (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited), which caused the accident. The 4th respondent is the Secretary, Mysore Government Insurance Department, Bangalore-1. in which the bus in question had been insured. The application was filed in the form prescribed under the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules. Only the 3rd respondent contested the said application on merits of the claim. The said respondent did not raise any objection in its pleadings that the application does not disclose any cause of action and therefore it is liable to be rejected. The application though filed in the year 1964, remained on the file of the Tribunal for about four vears. After one witness was examined the Tribunal suo motu raised the objection on 22-1-1968 that the application does not disclose any cause of action and that there is no allegation that the accident was the result of a rash and negligent act on the part of the respondents. The petitioner was asked to suitably amend the application by alleging the cause of action. The petitioner maintained that the application was in order since it is strictly in conformity with the form prescribed under the rules. The Tribunal by its order dt.28-1-1968 held that the claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. can be made only if the applicant alleges that the accident was caused as a result of the rash and negligent act of the respondent.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the course adopted by the Tribunal in rejecting the claim application is wholly unsupportable. It appears to us, that the Tribunal wanted to make a short cut of the entire case without recording evidence and deciding the case on its merits, particularly when no such objection had been raised in the pleadings on behalf of the contesting respondents. It it. not the view of the Tribunal that the application is not in conformity with the form prescribed. Before us also it is not contended by the learned Counsel appeering for the 3rd respondent that the application is not in conformity with the prescribed form. All that the learned Counsel submitted was, that the averment regarding rash and negligent act could have been mentioned against column 22 (Any other information that may be necessary or helpful in the disposal of the claim).