ARUN SHARMA Vs. CHANDRA BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition the Petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Sabita Devi, who died in a motor vehicular accident, seeks to impugn the following order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal:

(2.) The sole contention of Mr. Ashok Popli and Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocates, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in the present petition is that the Tribunal has wrongly and illegally dismissed the claim petition filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Smt. Sabita Devi under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground that since the D.A.R. (Detailed Accident Report) had been filed, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. It is contended that the filing of the Accident Information Report and/or the Detailed Accident Report is only to assist the Tribunals in expediting the grant of relief to the victims of a road accident, but the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 do not bar the Petitioners from filing an independent claim petition. The summary disposal of the claim petition by the Tribunal, it is contended, has taken away a valuable statutory right vested in the Petitioners/claimants by the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) Reliance is placed on a three-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., 2010 ACJ 455, wherein directions were issued to the police and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals for implementing the provisions of Section 158(6), 163A, 166(4) and 168(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to contend that keeping in view the aforesaid directions given by the Supreme Court, it was incumbent upon the Claims Tribunal to have entertained the claim petition filed by the Petitioners instead of dismissing the same on the ground that the case pertained to Detailed Accident Report (D.A.R.).