JUNEDKHAN AYUBKHAN PATHAN Vs. SARFARAZKHAN BASIRKHAN PATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned advocate Mr. Nishit Bhalodi for the petitioner submitted that Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 683 of 2013 (claim petition), filed by the present petitioner - original claimant, minor at the relevant time, came to be dismissed for default, for non prosecution by an order dtd. 17/3/2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Anand (the Tribunal). The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that it was a case of minor where the claim was for Rs.1.00 lakh and the Injury Certificate was on record. The learned advocate for the petitioner having placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another, (2011) 1 SCC 343 and in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited & Anr ., AIR 2014 SC 736 further submitted that the Tribunal could have granted the compensation without examining the claimant. 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.) 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:

(3.) In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The impugned order dtd. 17/3/2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Anand in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 683 of 2013 and the claim petition is restored to its original file. The learned Tribunal concerned is directed to decide the claim petition, granting due opportunity to the concerned to file evidence on record, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from the date of receipt of writ of this order.