R KARUPPAIAH Vs. S RATNAMANIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LOGISTICALLY the Tribunal was correct. But if we see it from the angle of just decision it is somewhat porous. The Tribunal returned an award on the basis of the claim petition of Respondent No.1 directing the Appellant to extinguish the said award as the vehicle owned by him was not driven by a driver having valid licence. From the point of view of logistic, the award of the Tribunal cannot be touched as it is otherwise based on sound reason and is the result of superb appreciation of the evidence and materials on record. But porous to the extent it has concluded on the basis after hearing the claimant (Respondent No.1) and the Insurance Company (Respondent No.2) and not the Appellant upon whom the award was foisted.

(2.) MR. Jayapal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant has assailed the award on the said ground, as he was of the view had he been given an opportunity to rebut the contents of Exts. A and B i.e. the details from the RTO, Chennai that no licence was issued in favour of Marimuthu the driver the table could have been perhaps turned. Shri Jayapal, Learned Counsel for the Appellant further took us through the minutes of the proceeding before the Learned Tribunal (MACT Case No.13 of 2003). Inviting our attention to Order No.13 dated 25.10.2005 MR. Jayapal submitted that date was fixed on 08th November, 2005 for filing WS by the Appellant (OP No.2). On the said dated (8.11.2005) as reflected from the Order No.14 since no step was taken by the Appellant he was directed to show cause as to why the proceeding would not move ex parte. MR. Jayapal submitted by way of referring to Order No.15 dated 20.12.2005 although there was prayer for adjournment made on his behalf the case could not be heard as the Court was vacant on that date. He submitted that before taking the harsh step by Order No.16 dated 16.2.2006 when the Tribunal proceeded with the case ex parte although no show cause was filed another opportunity could have been given. He has questioned the entire judgement and order under appeal on the aforesaid ground.

(3.) IN our reading of the provisions of Section 168 of the said Act, the phrase "" an opportunity of being heard, hold an enquiry "" and "" shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner" postulates that an opportunity of hearing is sine qua non for arriving at a conclusion in respect of a claim which is to be passed against the person or persons concerned. Otherwise if it is seen from a different angle a person or persons is visited with a liability to pay a compensation without affording him an opportunity of presenting his case. As such, the order under appeal in respect of the application made under Section 166 of the said Act has been rendered vulnerable.