DILIP KUMAR Vs. RAJESH SAHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) one of the grounds urged in this appeal for enhancement of the quantum of compensation as has been awarded by the tribunal vide its judgment dated 15.10.2001 passed in m.a.c.c. no. 219-s/2 of 1998 is that the claims tribunal wrongly rejected the application of the appellant-claimant for permission to adduce additional evidence. I have seen the tribunal's order dated 27.8.2001 and find that the claimant's prayer for permission to examine dr. R.s. yadav has been disallowed without properly appreciating the merits of the prayer. It appears that in a slipshod manner, the tribunal disallowed the appellant's aforesaid prayer, despite the fact that the examination of dr. R.s. yadav as one of the claimant's witnesses was very highly relevant and material for proper adjudication of the issues involved in this case, especially for determining the quantum of compensation on the ground of, and related to the disability suffered by the claimant-appellant. Not only that the tribunal does not appear to have assigned valid or cogent reasons for rejecting the appellant's aforesaid prayer.

(2.) by now, it is a commonly accepted proposition of law that in trying claim petitions under section 166 of motor vehicles act, 1988, the motor accidents claims tribunals established under section 165 of the act do not have to follow the rigours of procedural law as are prescribed either in the civil procedure code or in other acts and that these tribunals should adopt and follow a liberal approach in pursuing, trying and disposing of claim petitions under section 166 of the act. It is commonly known and realized that persons in distress, who are victims of accidents, approach the tribunals for succour and that the legislature in chapter xii of the motor vehicles act, 1988 has purposely and deliberately excluded the application of procedural laws with respect to the proceedings in the tribunals. Whereas section 166 of the act stipulates about the filing of an application for compensation by the victim of an accident, section 168 talks of the tribunals 'holding an inquiry' into the claim after giving notice of the application to the insurer and after giving the parties, including the insurer an opportunity of being heard. Sub-section (1) of section 168 of the act reads thus:

(3.) under section 169 of the act, it has specifically been laid down that a tribunal in holding an inquiry under section 168 may follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. Sub-section (2) of section 169 clothes the tribunal with all the power of a civil court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and for enforcing attendance of witnesses, etc. Section 169 of the act reads thus: