FIROZBHAI FAKRUDINBHAI PATHAN Vs. KANUBHAI PUNABHAI NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi for the petitioner submitted that Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 47 of 2012, which was renumbered as 1512 of 2015 (claim petition), filed by the present petitioner - original claimant, came to be dismissed for default, for non prosecution by an order dtd. 30/1/2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Vadodara at Savli (the Tribunal). The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that after filing the claim petition, the same remained sine die and only 13/9/2017, the Tribunal framed the Issues, however, without any reasoned order, the learned Tribunal, by the impugned order dtd. 30/1/2019, considering the matter to be old and pending for long time and observing that no one has taken care to proceed further with the matter, had disposed of the claim petition for default, for non-prosecution on the claimant side. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal ought not have dismissed the claim petition as laid down in the decision in Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary and Others v. Malek Rafik Malek Himmatbhai, 2011 (2) GLR 1324 as all the claim petitions are to be decided on merits.

(2.) 1 It is submitted that the claim petition was filed in the year 2012 and renumbered in 2015, which was pending in the registry sine die without framing Issues and hence, the petitioner would not have any source to remain in constant communication with the Advocate on record to pursue the matter. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the delay in framing Issues cannot be attributed to the petitioner and as laid down in Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary and Others' case (supra), the claim would have been decided on merits.

(3.) In case of the Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary and Others (supra), it has been held that the learned Tribunal has no power to dismiss the Claim Petition for default taking into consideration the object behind the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 i.e. to provide adequate compensation to the claimants. The relevant part of the above decision is reproduced herein below: