Gauhati High Court
Rocky Dev Burman vs Lohit Prakash Dutta And Anr. on 22 February, 2006
Equivalent citations: I(2007)ACC34, 2007ACJ1162, (2006)2GLR750
Author: I.A. Ansari
Bench: I.A. Ansari
ORDER I.A. Ansari, J.
1. Heard Mr. BM Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
2. By the impugned order, dated 22.12.2005, the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sivasagar, has dismissed the claim application on the ground of absence of the claimant.
3. It has been the consistent view of this Court, as expressed in Nandalal Kedia v. Jaswant Singh and Anr. reported in (1983) 2 GLR 253, Samsul Huda v. Mis. London and Lancashire Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. AIR 1972 Gau 35 and Akan Chandra Das and Anr. v. Md. Hussain and Anr. reported in 2000 (1) GLT 186, that for mere default in appearance of the claimant, a claim application, g seeking compensation, made under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (in short, 'the MV Act'), cannot be dismissed, for, there is no provision in the MV 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 h the MV Act. However, when a claimant fails to appear, take requisite steps and/or adduce 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 a to receive any compensation.
4. What further logically follows is that if, despite failure, on the part of the claimant, to appear, take requisite steps and/or adduce evidence, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal finds that the claimant is entitled to compensation, there is no impediment in law, on the part of the b Tribunal, to determine the amount of compensation, which the claimant may be entitled to, and pass an award accordingly even in the absence of the claimant.
5. In the case at hand, since the claim application has been dismissed on the mere ground of default and not because of the fact that the claimant had failed to prove that he was entitled to receive compensation, the real question as to whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation still remains unresolved. The impugned order, dated 22.12.2005, aforementioned cannot, therefore, be allowed to stand good on record and must be interfered with. When the order, dated 22.12.2005, aforementioned cannot survive, subsequent order, dated 5.1.2006, passed in MAC Case No. 13 of 2004, can also not survive.
6. In view of the above, the impugned orders, dated 22.12.2005 and 5.1.2006, aforementioned are hereby set aside and the claimant is directed to appear in the learned Tribunal, on 6.3.2006, for further appropriate orders. While so appearing in the learned Tribunal, the claimant shall furnish to the learned Tribunal a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the present writ petition and annexures thereto.
7. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed of
8. No order as to costs.