HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. GARJI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order passed on 22nd May, 1990, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul Spiti Districts at Mandi, H.P., directing the appellants to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/ under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act No. 59 of 1988), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) ONE Nika Ram expired in a fatal accident. On 11th April, 1990, respondent Nos. 1 to 4, claiming to be the widow and minor children, preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal. Notices were directed to be issued to the appellants as also to respondent No. 5 for 22nd May, 1990. It is the appellants' case that notices were received a few days prior to the date fixed in the case, which was not accompanied by any copy of the petition. The appellants put in appearance through their counsel on 22nd May, 1990, on which date they were not aware of the facts or particulars of the case or the claim laid by respondent Nos. 1 to 4. They had also no knowledge as to the particulars of the accident or about the claimants. Respondent No. 5, who had been arrayed as driver of the vehicle, had not been served. While adjourning the case to 23rd June, 1990, for the driver's service through affixation, an order was passed directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/ to the claimant respondent Nos. 1 to 4 under no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act on or before the next date of hearing. Claimant respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were also directed to furnish particulars as regards their respective ages, post mortem report, income certificate of the deceased, copy of F.I.R. and the expenditure incurred for treatment, etc. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the appellants preferred this appeal contending that the order is patently wrong and without jurisdiction. The Tribunal has erred in passing the order in a mechanical manner. without satisfying itself as to whether the requirements of Section 140 of the Act had been fulfilled or not.

(3.) FROM perusal of the order, one thing is clear that till the date when the impugned order was passed, the information which the Tribunal sought from the claimants was absolutely lacking. Neither the claimants had placed on record a copy of F.I.R. nor any other material by which it could be gathered or ascertained that the person, who was alleged to have died in the fatal accident, had in fact died as a result of an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. There, was also no material on record as to whether the appellants were the owners of the vehicle or whether the vehicle owned by the appellants was involved in any accident. There was also no material on record as to whether the claimants were the legal representatives of the deceased. The Tribunal passed the order before the appellants had put in their reply or had any information about the particulars of the claim. It appears that the order was passed in favour of the claimants since they had lodged a claim against the appellants.