JAYSUKHBHAI KALUBHAI MAKWANA Vs. BHOPABHAI BACHUBHAI BHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Appeal, the Appellants-claimants have challenged the judgment and award dtd. 29/1/2020 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhavnagar in M.A.C.P. No.237 of 2014. The learned Tribunal had dismissed the Claim Petition on the ground of there being default of the claimants in not adducing evidence.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the appellants-claimants Mr. Nirav C. Sanghavi has referred to Paragraph 6 of the impugned order stating that the examination-in-chief was produced at Exhibit 34 and the claimant/s had produced the copy of the First Information Report, Charge-sheet, Panchnama which had been procured from the Police Station. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal had observed that these documents were not proved and that the claimant No.1 had not remained present for cross examination by the respondents and therefore, the right of the claimants of the evidence was closed.

(3.) It is further submitted that the said observations are contrary to the record, since on 13/1/2017, the order was passed for ex-parte proceedings qua the the respondent No.1. Further, referring to the Affidavit Exhibit 38 produced under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, it is submitted that the Affidavit was recorded while no adjournment was sought by respondent to cross examine the witnesses. It is further submitted that the evidence which has been produced by way of First Information Report, Charge-sheet were from the Investigating Officer. Hence, as provided under Sec. 166 sub-sec. (4), the learned Tribunal shall have to treat any Report of the accident forwarded under Sec. 159, as an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the M.V. Act '). It is therefore, submitted that the learned Tribunal should have granted the compensation amount and should have appreciated the Affidavit and the documents which have been supplied by the Police, or in absence, or, even if at all there was any doubt with regard to the documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal could have called for the information under Form 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act , 1988.