RAJ RANI Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant Raj Rani who is mother of the deceased Krishan Kumar impugns a judgment dated 01.09.2009 whereby the Claim Petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed on the ground that the Appellant failed to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle No. GJ-24U-0206.

(2.) THE Claims Tribunal in the impugned judgment relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Minu B.Mehta v. Baldrishna Ramchandra Nayan 1977 ACJ 118 (SC) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and Others 2007 ACJ 1284 and held that in a Claim Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred as Act) a compensation could be awarded to a claimant only on proof of negligence. THEre cannot be any dispute about the proposition of law. At the same time, it has to be kept in mind that Section 168 of the Act enjoins the Claims Tribunal to hold an enquiry for determination of a just compensation. Section 169 of the Act provides that the Claims Tribunal shall follow such summary procedure as it deems fit to conduct such an enquiry. THE enquiry envisaged u/s 168 r/w Section 169 of the Act is different from the trial of a Civil Suit where a party would fail for non production of the evidence. THE Claims Tribunal which is manned by a Senior Judicial Officer is expected to hold an enquiry in a meaningful manner and to elicit evidence to award just and reasonable compensation.

(3.) THE impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. THE same is accordingly set aside with the directions to the Claims Tribunal to hold a further enquiry u/s 168 of the Act. THE Appellant shall summon the eye-witness by taking necessary steps. THE Claims Tribunal shall be at liberty to examine any further witness including the IO as may be deemed appropriate and to decide the question of negligence afresh and the award of compensation, if any, to the Appellant. THE parties are directed to appear before the concerned Claims Tribunal at District Court, Rohini on 19.04.2012.