SNEH LATA Vs. DALIP SINGH ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the medium of this appeal, the order dated 31.5.1996 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kathua in claim petition No. 88 of 1993 has been challenged whereby he had summarily dismissed the claims of the appellants herein on the ground that they had failed to lead evidence to prove who was the owner and who was the driver of the offending vehicle. On 11.9.1996, when this appeal was admitted brother Khan, J. had issued notice to respondent No. 1 only as he has been arraigned as the owner of the offending vehicle in question. Mr. Sunil Sethi has appeared as his counsel and admits that respondent No. 1 is the owner of the offending vehicle.

(2.) HEARD the arguments.

(3.) SO far as the legal aspect of the case is concerned Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act casts a duty on the Claims Tribunal to hold enquiry into the claims and determine the just compensation specifying the person or persons to whom the compensation shall be paid and specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. The impugned award ex facie reveals that no such attempt was made, but in a casual and perfunctory manner the claims of the victims of the accident in question were thrown over board by taking a plea that the owner and driver of the vehicle were not known.