Gujarat High Court
Sunil Shivran Alias Sevaram Rabari vs Nirmalsing Triloksing on 28 August, 2018
Author: S.G. Shah
Bench: S.G. Shah
C/SCA/2463/2018 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2463 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH Sd/-
=========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be Yes
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair No
copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial No
question of law as to the interpretation of
the Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
=========================================================
SUNIL SHIVRAN ALIAS SEVARAM RABARI
Versus
NIRMALSING TRILOKSING
=========================================================
Appearance:
MR SANDEEP N BHATT(190) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MS SONAL S BHATT(2870) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR DAKSHESH MEHTA(2430) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 3
RULE UNSERVED(68) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2
=========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.G. SHAH
Date : 28/08/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Bhatt for the petitioner as well as Mr.Mehta, learned advocate Page 1 of 8 C/SCA/2463/2018 JUDGMENT for the respondent No.3. Perused the record.
2. The petitioner herein is original claimant before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gandhidham - Kutch in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.332/2008 wherein he has claimed Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries received by him in vehicular accident on 11.6.2008. Such claim petition has been dismissed for want of prosecution and in absence of applicant, by order dated 6.10.2017, below application for compensation being Exh.1 in such Motor Accident Claims Petition No.332/2008, by summary order Tribunal has recorded that since application is of the year 2008 and since it is pending for more than 5 years and since issues were framed before for long time, it is not in the interest of justice to keep such petition pending as if claimant is not interested in proceeding further and, therefore, in absence of claimant and his advocate, petition was dismissed for Page 2 of 8 C/SCA/2463/2018 JUDGMENT default for want of evidence by the claimant.
3. It is unfortunate that Tribunal has failed to realize the statutory provision which permits the Tribunal to call for the relevant information in form of form No.56 from the concerned investigating agency which is in-fact statutory duty of such investigating agency to forward such information to the Tribunal and then Tribunal is empowered to award just and reasonable compensation based upon the available evidence on record. The Tribunal has also failed to realize that now law permits to record the evidence of the claimant in the form of affidavit and thereby when main application is supported by affidavit and when there is specific averment in such application regarding nature of incident and its result; so also details of claim by the petitioner and more particularly, when petitioner has though calculated the quantum of compensation as Rs.3,10,200/-, but fairly Page 3 of 8 C/SCA/2463/2018 JUDGMENT submitted that he would be satisfied if Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded in his favour, there is no reason for the Tribunal to dismiss such petition summarily. It is also disturbing to see that the order dated 6.10.2017 which is a stereotype pre-drafted order wherein relevant information like number of claim petition, date of framing issue, exhibit of issues and date of order is handwritten with number of claim petition. Thereby, it is clear that the Tribunal is keen to dispose of several petitions only because they are pending for 5 years for the reasons best known to the Tribunal.
4. In any case, any instruction for early disposal of any kind of litigation should not result into injustice in any manner to any litigant at any cost. By all means, Courts are meant to do justice between the parties and the issue of disposal, more particularly, early and speedy disposal would never come in way of doing Page 4 of 8 C/SCA/2463/2018 JUDGMENT justice to the litigants. It is also evident from such order that issues were framed only on 23.6.2017 in a petition which is filed in the year 2008 whereas petition was dismissed on 6.10.2017 i.e. just within 4 months from the date of framing of issues, which were not framed by the tribunal for 9 years.
5. Further unfortunate instance is in the form of impugned order dated 5.1.2018 when petitioner has preferred Misc. Civil Application No.741/2017 to restore the main petition.
6. Unfortunately the Tribunal has again blow the same tune for such summary order of one page that since the matter was pending for more than 5 years and since the petitioner was not present on the date fixed for evidence and, thereby, when main petition was dismissed for default for want of prosecution, it cannot be restored.
Page 5 of 8
C/SCA/2463/2018 JUDGMENT
7. I have perused the affidavit-in-reply by the respondent/s. They have objected to allow such petition and contended that in such cases, at-least claimant may not be entitled to interest from the date of disposal of their petition till its restoration.
8. However, I do not find any substance in the defence so as to deny the justice to the petitioner by awarding just and reasonable compensation by the Tribunal which is fixed for the purpose and, thereby, it is clear that a Tribunal has to act not only in accordance with law but also not as a strict civil court following strict rule of procedure and as said hereinabove, no matter can be disposed of only because it is pending for couple of years without doing justice between the parties and more particularly in given case when issues were framed only in the month of June, 2017 and, thereafter, main matter Page 6 of 8 C/SCA/2463/2018 JUDGMENT dismissed in the month of October, 2017.
9. In any case, Tribunal has failed to award just and reasonable compensation on evidence available on record and, therefore, the impugned order has resulted into material illegality and injustice to the claimant - petitioner and, therefore, such orders are required to be quashed and set aside.
10. In view of above, impugned order dated 5.1.2018 in Misc. Civil Application No.741/2017 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gandhidham
- Kutch is quashed and set aside which results into allowing such Misc. Civil Application whereby order dated 6.10.2017 below Exh.1 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.332/2008 is also quashed and set aside resulting into restoration of such Motor Accident Claims Petition before such Tribunal. Thereby, now, such Tribunal shall offer reasonable opportunity Page 7 of 8 C/SCA/2463/2018 JUDGMENT to both the parties to adduce their evidence in favour of their original claim and, thereafter, Tribunal shall decide just and reasonable compensation that may be awarded to the claimant because considering the nature of accident, probably there is no issue regarding liability of the insurance company.
11. This Petition is allowed in above terms. Rule is made absolute to that extent. Direct Service is permitted.
Sd/-
(S.G. SHAH, J) *** Kotecha Page 8 of 8