MAYA DEVI Vs. JUDGE MOTORE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNALTONK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Maya Devi has filed a claim application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tonk, for determining the amount of compensation on account of death of her husband Ramesh Chandra Gupta who is stated to have died in a motor accident which was caused by a vehicle owned by the respondent Union of India. The claim was resisted by the respondent Union of India on the ground that the factum of accident in which the petitioner's husband is alleged to have died is a forged and fabricated claim. However, the claim petition has been entertained by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tonk in which the witnesses have been examined and the matter is still pending for final argument. An application on behalf of the petitioner during pendency of this proceedings was filed with a prayer that two witnesses who are eyewitnesses to the factum of accident be allowed to be examined in support of the claim of the petitioner but the same has been rejected by Claims Tribunal against which this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently submitted that the petitioner has come up with a forged and fabricated claim and no accident involving the vehicle of the Union of India at all took place. It was further argued by him that the examination of the witnesses having already concluded, the petitioner has filed an application for examining two witnesses projecting them as eyewitnesses which is an afterthought and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal was clearly justified in rejecting this prayer of the petitioner as a result of which the application for this purpose stood rejected.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it clearly transpires that the petitioner is a claimant and obviously she is the one who is most interested in a speedy trial of her claim petition by the Tribunal but in the process, the proceeding has to be dealt with in an impeccably fair and just manner. It also cannot be lost sight of that although the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code by and large are applicable to the proceedings conducted before the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, the technicality of the rules laid down in the Civil Procedure Code cannot be allowed to be made applicable in a manner which ultimately might result into miscarriage of justice. In the instant matter when the respondent Union of India denied the factum of accident itself, it was the duty of the Tribunal in my view to grant sufficient opportunity to the petitioner claimant to produce all evidence to prove the factum of accident by leading sufficient evidence in this regard. If for proving the factum of accident, oral as well as documentary evidence is essential, no prejudice would be caused to respondent if a liberty is granted to the petitioner to examine two witnesses who are claimed to be eyewitnesses in support of the factum of accident, specially when the argument has not even started before Tribunal. Respondents obviously will have an opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses on their veracity but if their examination itself is forestalled merely on the ground that the application was filed after some delay, it is quite likely that the claim might be rejected without awarding an opportunity of fair trial and it is obvious that if the factum of accident is not proved, the whole claim will fall to the ground causing grave prejudice to the petitioner's interest which is bound to result into miscarriage of justice. This cannot be permitted merely on a technical ground and as already stated, the technicality of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be allowed to prevail over the Claims Tribunal so as to sacrifice the cause of justice. The plea of the respondents for these reasons is fit to be rejected. Consequently, the respondent Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tonk shall grant liberty to the petitioner in Case No. 95 of 1993 to examine two witnesses, namely, Mohammad Rafiq and Manish Toshniwal expeditiously and shall also grant liberty to respondent Union of India to cross-examine them before proceeding with the argument. The impugned order of the Tribunal under the circumstances is quashed and set aside to the extent that it is directed to examine the aforesaid two witnesses expeditiously. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed but without any costs. Writ petition allowed.