VIKRAMSINH BHAVANSINH PARMAR Vs. PAGI BHARATSINH JESINGBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this Appeal, the Appellant-claimant has challenged the judgment and award dtd. 2/8/2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Mahisagar at Lunawada, in M.A.C.P. No.1314 of 2017.

(2.) Learned Advocate for the appellant-claimant has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary and Others v. Malek Rafik Malek Himmatbhai reported in 2011 (2) G.L.R. 1324 and submitted that the learned Tribunal was required to decide the case on merits. It is further stated that the learned Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the Claim Petition which had remained pending sine die for more than ten years as the M.A.C.P. was initially numbered as 1649 of 2007 which later came to be re-numbered as M.A.C.P. No.1314 of 2017, where the issues were framed below Exhibit 15 on 14/11/2018. It is further submitted that no fault can be laid on the claimant as the matter was not ready for a long period and therefore, the claimant would have lost track of the proceedings and even could not have remained in continuous contact with the Advocate on record. It is also submitted that instead of dismissing the matter, the learned Tribunal could have decided the matter on the basis of the documentary evidence which would have been produced at the time of filing of the Claim Petition and thus, urged that the matter be remanded to the learned Tribunal for deciding the same on merits. In addition, it is submitted that the claimant hails from a very remote area and thus would not have been in a position to attend the Court at the relevant time and thus, for the absence of learned Advocate in the proceedings, the claimant should not suffer; the learned Tribunal could have closed the right of the claimant and could have proceeded for recording of the evidence of the respondent.

(3.) Heard learned Advocate for the appellant-claimant; perused the material on record. The learned Tribunal while dismissing the matter for default has observed that the case is more than ten years old and has also referred to an administrative resolution about 10 years pendency of the matter. However, no evidence was recorded for calculation of compensation to prove the accidental injury. Further, it was also observed that the Advocate for the appellant had constantly remained absent and had not tried to proceed diligently.