SANTOLINA JOSEPHINA Vs. INACIO XAVIER FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sanman Keny for the Appellants and Mr Akshay Naik for Respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Respondent No.1-owner/driver of Pleasure scooter (allegedly the offending vehicle) though served, was neither present nor represented.

(2.) The widow, aged mother, and the minor son-Sejal George Fernandes challenge the impugned Judgment and Award dtd. 9/5/2019, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, Margao (Tribunal), dismissing their Claim Petition No.80/2014 for alleged failure on their part in proving the owner/driver's rashness and negligence. However, after recording this finding, the Tribunal did not bother to record any finding on other issues, particularly on the quantum of compensation. In doing so, the Tribunal acted in breach of various rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and this Court requiring the Courts and Tribunals to avoid shortcuts and decide all issues that fall for determination.

(3.) In Bimlesh and Ors. V/s. New India Assurance Company Limited (2010) 8 SCC 591, in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Tribunal has to follow the summary procedure subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is not strictly applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal except to the extent provided in Sec. 169(2) of the MV Act and the Rules made thereunder. The whole object of the summary procedure is to ensure that the Claim Petition is heard and decided by the Claims Tribunal expeditiously. In paragraph 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Claims Tribunal must dispose of all issues one way or the other while deciding the claim petition.