PADAMJIT KUMAR Vs. RAJINDER SINGH GREWAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PADAMJIT Kumar Dutt, minor applied under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for the grant of compensation on the ground that he received injuries as a result of a Motor -car accident which took place near Civil Hospital Jalandhar City. He impleaded Rajinder Singh, owner of the car and the General Insurance Society Ltd, as Respondents. Both the Respondents pleaded that the application was not in order as it was on behalf of the minor and not through any guardian and further that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent act of the applicant. The learned Tribunal did not frame any issue on the objections raised by the Respondents. A copy of the first information report lodged by the applicant and countersigned by his father was produced before him. This first information report is alleged to contain that the applicant was injured because he was trying to cross the road on his bicycle when knocked by the car and that the car at the time was going at a slow speed. The learned Tribunal thought that this first information report alone was sufficient to prove that the accident took place on account of the applicant's negligence and consequently he dismissed the application. The applicant has come up in appeal to this Court.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Tribunal did not give the Appellant enough opportunity to prove that the accident took place on account of Rajinder Singh's rash and negligent act in driving his car and further that the Appellant could under the law prove by further evidence that what ever had been mentioned in the first information report was not correct I am inclined to agree with him. The learned Tribunal has dismissed the application in a summary manner and without following the rules of natural justice The Appellant should have been given him an opportunity to prove that the accident took place not on account of his rash and negligent act but as a result of Rajinder Singh's driving his car in a reckless manner. The order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained in law. The appeal is accepted and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The case is remanded to the Tribunal for disposal according to law. The costs will abide the event 3. The parties through their counsel have been directed to appear before the Tribunal on 1st March, 1966.