SUNIL SHIVRAN ALIAS SEVARAM RABARI Vs. NIRMALSING TRILOKSING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Bhatt for the petitioner as well as Mr.Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent No. 3. Perused the record.

(2.) The petitioner herein is original claimant before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gandhidham - Kutch in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 332/2008 wherein he has claimed Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries received by him in vehicular accident on 11.6.2008. Such claim petition has been dismissed for want of prosecution and in absence of applicant, by order dated 6.10.2017, below application for compensation being Exh.1 in such Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 332/2008, by summary order Tribunal has recorded that since application is of the year 2008 and since it is pending for more than 5 years and since issues were framed before for long time, it is not in the interest of justice to keep such petition pending as if claimant is not interested in proceeding further and, therefore, in absence of claimant and his advocate, petition was dismissed for default for want of evidence by the claimant.

(3.) It is unfortunate that Tribunal has failed to realize the statutory provision which permits the Tribunal to call for the relevant information in form of form No. 56 from the concerned investigating agency which is in-fact statutory duty of such investigating agency to forward such information to the Tribunal and then Tribunal is empowered to award just and reasonable compensation based upon the available evidence on record. The Tribunal has also failed to realize that now law permits to record the evidence of the claimant in the form of affidavit and thereby when main application is supported by affidavit and when there is specific averment in such application regarding nature of incident and its result; so also details of claim by the petitioner and more particularly, when petitioner has though calculated the quantum of compensation as Rs. 3,10,200/-, but fairly submitted that he would be satisfied if Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded in his favour, there is no reason for the Tribunal to dismiss such petition summarily. It is also disturbing to see that the order dated 6.10.2017 which is a stereotype pre-drafted order wherein relevant information like number of claim petition, date of framing issue, exhibit of issues and date of order is handwritten with number of claim petition. Thereby, it is clear that the Tribunal is keen to dispose of several petitions only because they are pending for 5 years for the reasons best known to the Tribunal.