RAMA NAND Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 1.6.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla whereby their claim petition was consigned to the Record Room by I holding it a defective on the ground that there are contradictions in the pleadings particularly in the name of deceased person.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, this court finds that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has passed the order in a hot haste without taking into account all the facts and circumstances on record. It is correct that in paras 1 and 2 of the claim petition the name of the deceased person is given as Geeta Ram, but name of his father is given as Rama Nand who is claimant No. 1. The Motor Accident claims Tribunal has not cared to notice that it is mentioned in the beginning of the claim petition that it is, "for the grant of compensation on account of death of their son Ramesh Chand, who was unmarried". Claimant No.2 Panchu Devi has appeared as PW -1 and affirmed the name of her deceased son as Ramesh Chand ; his age as 30 years; his status as unmarried and employment as teacher in the Govt. school. These particulars have not been denied by the respondents either in the reply to the claim petition or in the cross -examination or by producing evidence in rebuttal. Had the Motor Accident claims Tribunal given second thought, he would have come to the conclusion that the name of deceased has been mentioned as Geeta Ram instead of Ramesh Chand in paras 1 and 2 of the claim petition inadvertently or as a result of typing mistake. The proper course for the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was to give an opportunity to the claimants to amend the petition and remove the discrepancy in the name of the deceased and not to straight -away consign the claim petition to the Record Room. The discrepancy found by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal was not of such a serious nature as to warrant the dismissal of the claim petition which was at the arguments stage.

(3.) This court is constrained to point out that the impugned order shocks the judicial conscience of this court in view of the facts on record that the parents had filed claim petition for compensation on account of the death of their son in a Motor Accident as far back as on 2.12.1998 and did all their best by engaging a counsel to conduct the claim petition and by producing all possible evidence on their behalf but when their case ripened for arguments after two and half years and thereafter for decision. The motor Accident claims tribunal consigned it to the Record Room by finding that the\ name of their deceased son was wrongly typed as Geeta Ram in Para 1 and 2 of the claim petition. Further as a result of the impugned order, not only the decision of the claim petition has been delayed for more than none year, but has also caused the present unnecessary litigation.