AMALINA ANTONIO COSTA Vs. JAYMALA MILIND DADDIKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Bhobe, learned counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Padgaonkar, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 (driver), Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 (owner) and Mr. Shirodkar, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 (Insurance Company).

(2.) The challenge in this Appeal is to the judgment and award dtd. 7/1/2021 by which the Tribunal dismissed the Appellant's Claim Petition No.112/2017 on the ground that the Appellant failed to establish the rashness and negligence on the part of the Honda Civic car driver. However, after recording this finding, the Tribunal did not bother to decide the issue of the quantum of compensation. In doing so, the Tribunal acted in breach of the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, requiring the Courts and the Tribunals to avoid shortcuts and decide all issues that fall for their determination.

(3.) In Bimlesh and Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited1 (2010) 8 SCC 591, in paragraphs 7,8 & 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.