KIRANBHAI PRAVINBHAI PARMAR Vs. RAJURAM DALURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Yogendra Thakore, learned advocate for the appellant stated that MACP was filed by 19 years old young boy who was pursuing his education and was also earning by doing labour work. His matter being MACP no.292/12 has been dismissed by the MACT, Mehsana on

(2.) 4.2018 on the ground that the applicant could not serve opponents no.1 and 2 and thus, came to the conclusion that since opponents no.1 and 2 have remain unserved, the liability cannot be laid down on the insurance Company, which is opponent no.3. 2. Advocate Mr. Thakore submitted that another MACP 290/12 was instituted on the same day i.e. on 12/6/2012 and in MACP no.290/12, the proceedings against the said opponents no.1 and 2 were conducted ex-parte and judgment was delivered on 28/6/2021 making the insurance Company liable to pay the compensation. Mr. Thakore submitted that had both the matters be conducted together, the applicant may not have faced these consequences. Mr. Thakore submitted that in case the applicant who is still pursuing his studies, would not be in a position to get the notice served at Rajasthan, rather Mr. Thakore submitted that before dismissing the matter, it ought to have instructed to the applicant to serve it by way of official gazette.

(3.) Taking into consideration the decision in the case of Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary & Ors. v. Malek Rafik Malek Himmatbhai, reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1324, Mr. Thakore submitted that no case under MACP could be disposed of without deciding the matter on merits. Mr. Thakore further submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have kept in mind the judgment in the case of Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Company Limited , reported in (2010) 2 SCC 607 and should have asked the Investigating Officer to have served opponents no.1 and 2 who are driver and owner of the vehicle residing at Rajasthan.