RANGITSINH FULSINH ZALA Vs. SAFIMIYA SARIFMIYA MALEK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Darji for the petitioner and perused the record.

(2.) Since matter is required to be remanded back considering the material illegality and irregularity in the impugned order, I do not see any reason to call upon the respondent, who is otherwise also served before the Tribunal, notice upon respondent No.1 can certainly be waived relying upon the decision in the case of A. Robert Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 1999 AIR(SC) 2977 read with Order 41 Rule 14(4) of the C.P.C. Whereas, respondent No.2 would come in the picture only when matter is heard on merits, otherwise, they have no legal right to oppose such petition except for the reasons permitted under the M.V. Act, 1988.

(3.) It is unfortunate that for one or another reason, Tribunals are dismissing the petition of the claimants contending that claimants have failed to proceed further or as stated in the present case failed to prove his case. It is basic principle of jurisprudence of the country that no-one should left without the remedy except for certain reasons. It is also very much clear that claimants of such petition are not regular litigant but they are victim of road accident when they have received injuries and when they are claiming compensation as per Statute and thereby they are not beggars.