Manipur High Court
Smt. Thingbaijam Ongbi Ekashini Devi & ... vs Shri Oinam Chaoba Singh & Ors on 26 September, 2024
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
[1] IN. 64
SHOUGRAKPAM Digitally signed by
SHOUGRAKPAM
DEVANANDA DEVANANDA SINGH IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
Date: 2024.09.27 15:05:41
SINGH +05'30'
AT IMPHAL
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2020
Smt. Thingbaijam Ongbi Ekashini Devi & ors. ... Petitioners
Vs.
Shri Oinam Chaoba Singh & ors. ... Respondents
B E F O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
O R D E R
26-09-2024 [1] Heard Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondents.
[2] On 05-08-2024, this court has already passed an order that in the event of non-appearance of the respondents or any of their counsel in the next date of hearing, the matter will be proceeded ex-parte and a copy of the said order was also furnished to the counsel appearing for the respondents by the learned counsel appearing for the present petitioners. Despite passing such order, none of the respondents or their counsel appeared before this court today.
[3] The facts of the present case, in a nutshell, are that the present petitioners filed a Motor Accident Claim Case No. 124 of 2011 in the Court of the Presiding Officer, MACT, Imphal West at Lamphelpat, claiming for compensation. The said case was dismissed by the learned Tribunal by an order dated 02-04-2016 due to default of the claimants and their counsels. Having been aggrieved, the present petitioners approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Imphal West, by filing two applications, one for restoration of the Motion Accident Case and another for condoning the delay in filing the restoration application. The learned Tribunal dismissed the condonation application by passing an order dated 13-06-2019 in MAC Misc. Case No. 23 of 2017 (Ref:- MAC CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2020 Contd.../-
[2]Case No. 124 of 2011) refusing to accept the explanation given by the petitioners for the delay in filing the restoration application.
Having been aggrieved, the petitioners approached this court by filing the present case with the prayer for setting aside the order dated 13-06-2019 passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC Misc. Case No. 23 of 2017 coupled with the prayer for passing an appropriate order for restoring the MAC Case No. 124 of 2011 filed by the petitioners and directing the MAC Tribunal, Imphal West, to decide the same on merit.
[4] Mr. Ajoy Pebam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted only one point in challenging the impugned order. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that there is no provision under law enabling the learned Tribunal to reject the Motor Accident Claim on ground of default of either the party or the counsel representing the said party. In support of his contention, the learned counsel cited the judgment rendered by the Chattisgarh High Court in the case of "Fulkunwar Bargash & ors. Vs. Suresh Kumar Sahoo & ors"
reported in 2013 SCC Online CHH 133, wherein it has been held as under:
"6. On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid Rules, I am of the considered opinion that though the Rules provides for summary dismissal of a claim petition but if the claim petition is not dismissed summarily and the proceeding is continued in accordance with the subsequent Rules and ultimately issues are framed, the Claims Tribunal must decide the issues and record its finding on the judgment as provided in the Rules. The Act and Rules enjoins a duty upon a Claims Tribunal to hold an inquiry in to the claim, decide the issues and record its finding thereon notwithstanding the default of either party and after the issues are framed, the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to dismiss the claim petition for default or to refuse to make an award and I hold so accordingly."
"7. In a decision Shivshankar v. Sarjeet Singh, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh while considering the issue, whether the claim petition can be dismissed for default after framing of issues. It was held as under:
"7. Appreciating the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Accidents Claims Tribunal) Rules, 1960 in juxtaposition with Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, I am of the considered opinion that it is obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to pass an award after settlement of issues and it has no jurisdiction to dismiss the claim petition for default or refuse to make an award."
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2020 Contd.../-[3]
"8. In a decision Rocky Dev Burman v. Lohit Prakash Dutta, the High Court of Gauhati has held as under:-
"3. It has been the consistent view of this Court, as expressed in Nandalal Kedia v. Jaswant Singh, (1983) 2 G.L.R. 253, Samsul Huda v. London and Lancashire Insurance Co. Itd., A.I.R. 1972 Gau. 35, and Akan Chandra Das v. Md. Hussain, 2000 (1) G.L.T. 186, that for mere default in appearance of the claimant, a claim application, seeking compensation, made under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (in short, the M.V. Act), cannot be dismissed, for, there is no provision in the M.V. Act and/or the Rules framed thereunder permitting or empowering the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals to dismiss, for default, an application seeking compensation made under the M.V. Act. However, when a claimant fails to appear, take requisite steps and/or adduced evidence and the Tribunal finds that on the ground of such failure, the claimant has completely failed to prove his/her claim for compensation, the Tribunal shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order(s) of no-claim award, i.e., an award to the effect that the claimant has failed to prove that the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation.
"9. In a decision United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, the High Court of Allahabad has held as under:-
"7. The aforesaid rules show that the Claims Tribunal has to decide the application by holding an inquiry. A claim petition, if it has not been dismissed; under Rule 206, cannot be dismissed for default If the claimant does not appear on the date fixed, the Tribunal shall proceed to decide the claim. If evidence has been led or partly led, it may examine the evidence and made an award. Where evidence has not been led, the Tribunal may decide matter for insufficiency of or for want of evidence, but having proceeded with the matter beyond the stage of Rule 206, it cannot dismiss it only on the ground that on the date fixed the claimant or claimants have failed to appear."
"10. So far the question whether restoration of restoration application is concerned, the power may be found under Section 151, C.P.C. and is also spelled, out of the provisions of the Act, which provide for Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as a Special Tribunal for remedies which earlier lied in an action for compensation based on Torts. The new Forum was created for speedy and simplified remedy, of compensation to accident victims or their dependents and provisions for losses and expenses. New remedies of 'no fault liability' and for 'hit and run' cases were added to meet extraordinary situations for immediate compensation or where the negligent owner or driver of vehicle has not been identified. The claimant, or dependent of claimant is often handicapped in perusing the remedy. It will, therefore, be unjust and unfair where a claim, which is prima facle, found to be valid for consideration, be dismissed for default and thereafter remedy of restoration, or restoration of restoration be dismissed on technical grounds. Even a police report has to be treated as an application, and that every application filed must be inquired into and decided by the Tribunal. In case no evidence is forthcoming, the Tribunal may dismiss the claim but that it cannot dismiss the claim for default and that where it has been so dismissed, the claim petition may be treated to have been filed on the date when such an application is made as there is no provision of limitation after deletion of Sub-section (3) of Section 168 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2020 Contd.../-[4]
Act, 1988 (Act No. 59 of 1988). The decision in Nanhi Bai's case (supra), was under the old Act and is thus not applicable to the facts of the present case."
"20. Thus, keeping in mind the aforesaid principles, in the instant case, the Claims Tribunal has already framed issues and appellants/claimants have also examined their one witness and the case was fixed for further evidence on 20/07/2011, therefore, the Claims Tribunal could not have dismissed the claim petition for non-appearance of appellants/claimants. In view of the scheme of the Rules of 1994 and law laid down hereinabove, dismissal of the claim petition is bad in law."
[5] Relying on the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that dismissal of the claim case filed by the petitioners on ground of default, rejection of the application for condonation of the delay in filing the restoration application and refusal to restore the claim case by the learned Tribunal are bad in law and as such, interference from this court is warranted by setting aside the impugned order and by passing an order for restoring the said claim case filed for deciding on merit by the learned Tribunal.
[6] I have heard at length the submission advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also carefully examined the materials available on record. I have also carefully perused the judgment cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and this court is of the considered view that there is force and substance in the submission advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
[7] It has also been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in the aforesaid case, the learned Tribunal has already framed issues and that instead of deciding the said claim case on merit, the learned Tribunal dismissed the said case on ground of non- prosecution and that such dismissal is contrary to the principle of law laid down by the High Court.
Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the principle of law laid down by various High CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2020 Contd.../-
[5]Courts of the country, more particularly in the case law cited on behalf of the petitioners, this court is of the considered view that it is a fit case for interfering with the impugned order so as to uphold the interest of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13-06-2019 passed by the MACT Tribunal, Imphal West in MAC Misc. Case No. 23 of 2017 (Ref:- MAC Case No. 124 of 2011) is hereby quashed and set aside and the delay of 395 days in filing the restoration application is hereby condoned.
In the result, the order dated 02-04-2016 passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the said claim case on ground of default is hereby set aside and the said claim case is restored on file. The learned Tribunal is hereby directed to consider the said claim case and decided it on merit.
With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
Devananda
CRP(CRP Art. 227) No. 33 of 2020 Contd.../-