PALA RAM Vs. SANTOKH SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall decide three appeals, FAOs No. 2139, 2140 and 2141 of 2002 having arisen out of the common award dated 6th February, 2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (later referred as 'Tribunal'). The appellants have filed separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by them on 21st December, 1999, in accident with motor vehicle Bajaj Tempo bearing registration no. HR45-1273 (later referred as 'offending vehicle'). From the perusal of the award, it appears that the claim petitions were filed on 15th March, 2000. The Tribunal closed the evidence of claimants by order on 17th November, 2001 and dismissed the claim petitions vide award dated 6th February, 2002 with the observations that the claimants have not appeared and have not examined any eye-witness of the occurrence to prove that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the claim petitions were fixed for 16th October, 2001 and the claimants have summoned three witnesses by depositing their diet money. However, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was on leave on 16th October, 2001 and the files were taken up on 13th October, 2001 and adjourned for 17th November, 2001 for the same proceedings, for which it was fixed for 16th October, 2001. For 17th November, 2001, two witnesses were got served by the claimants, while the third witness Civil Surgeon Dr. Om Parkash, who was Chairman of the Medical Board, which conducted the examination of claimants to assess their disability, could not be served as he was on leave. The Tribunal closed the evidence of claimants on 17th November, 2001 and dismissed the claim petitions vide award dated 6th February, 2002. When the witnesses had been summoned by the claimants, the Tribunal instead of closing the evidence by order, should have provided further opportunity, as there was no lapse on the part of the claimants in getting the service of summoned witnesses effected. The case, as such, be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision, after affording appropriate opportunities to the claimants.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has argued that the Tribunal had already allowed four opportunities to the claimants and the perusal of the award shows that none of the claimant had appeared as witness and there is no explanation for their not appearing as witness. The order dated 17th November, 2001 was also not challenged by filing any revision petition, as such, the same has become final.