SUMAN Vs. MANJU DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Appeals (MAC. APP. 647/2012 & MAC. APP. 651/2012) arise out of a judgment dated 30th January, 2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) filed by Respondents No.1 to 5 was allowed and a compensation of Rs. 8,70,924.00 along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from 15.04.2006 till the date of payment was granted.

(2.) DURING the course of arguments, it was urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that in this case the driver was ordered to be impleaded as Respondent No.3 by an order dated 18.05.2007. He was not permitted to file his written statement. He was impleaded at the stage of recording of the evidence of the Respondents and no opportunity was granted to the driver (Respondent No.7 herein) to cross-examine the witnesses or to present his case.

(3.) IT is true that in a Claim Petition presented under Section 166 of the Act, a Claims Tribunal is required to hold an inquiry to award a compensation which appears to be just. The Claims Tribunal was expected to follow the principle of natural justice and at least to permit Respondent No.3 (Respondent No.7 herein), the driver of the offending vehicle, to file his written statement and allow him to cross-examine the witnesses already produced by the Claimants and the Respondents.