Gauhati High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mukti Nath Das on 10 June, 1987
Equivalent citations: II(1987)ACC335, [1989]65COMPCAS582(GAUHATI)
JUDGMENT Manisana, J.
1. This is an appeal from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, of March 25, 1986, made in MAC Case No. 47(K) of 1985.
2. A goods vehicle bearing registration No. AMK 6224 loaded with timbers was driven rashly and negligently and hit the car in which, the claimant was travelling. In that accident, the claimant sustained injuries on his chest, little finger of the right hand, left leg and private parts.. The claimant claimed Rs. 50,000 against the owner and the driver of the vehicle as well as against the insurance company. The case proceeded ex parte against the owner and the driver of the vehicle. The insurance company contested the case by filing a written statement. The Tribunal made an award directing the insurance company to pay Rs. 25,000 with interest at 9% from the date of application'for compensation to the date of payment and costs of Rs. 500. Against the award, the insurance company has filed this appeal.
3. The facts which emerge out of the record are as follows. The date, March 22, 1986, was fixed for framing issues and filing documents. But, on that day, no order was passed nor was any issue framed. No date was ever fixed by the Tribunal either for hearing of the case or for any purpose in the progress of the case. No forma! notice was issued to the parties concerned intimating the date of hearing as on March 25, 1986. The case was taken up unexpectedly on March 25, 1986, for hearing. The advocate for the insurance company was present accidentally at the time of recording evidence of the claimant and making the award. An application filed on March 25, 1986, by counsel for the insurance company for setting aside the award stating the facts abovementioned was rejected on March 29, 1986, by the memberof the Tribunal on the ground that he was to dispose of the matter on an off-date in order to clear his arrears as he was under orders of transfer.
4. Mr. S.S. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant, the insurance company, submitted that the award was made by the Tribunal on an offdate in violation of the principles of natural justice and procedural laws. Mr. A.K. Bordoloi, learned counsel for the claimant, the respondent herein, submitted that the examination of witness and the delivery of the judgment were made in the presence of counsel for the insurance company ; and that the judgment of the Tribunal indicates that the Tribunal, heard the counsel for the insurance company, who was present at the time of hearing and the delivery of the judgment. Therefore, no prejudice was caused to the insurance company.
5. The purpose of fixing a date for hearing of evidence is for giving the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity to contest the case in a fair manner. The petition to set aside the award filed on March 25, 1986, by counsel for the company was disposed of by the learned member of the Tribunal on March 29, 1986. Therefore, there was no time compulsion to dispose of the case on March 25, 1986. By the mere presence of counsel for the insurance company accidentally at the time of recording evidence and delivery of the judgment, it cannot be said that the appellant, the insurance company, was given a reasonable opportunity of hearing because he was genuinely handicapped by reason of the procedure adopted by the learned member of the Tribunal. Justice is something more than to decide what is right or wrong. A judge may be fully satisfied in his mind that he has done justice. It is not enough. It should be done in such a manner that all persons are satisfied that justice has been done, bearingin mind that "justice must also appear to have been done ".
6. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment and award dated March 25, 1986, passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remitted to the Tribunal for disposal afresh after giving an opportunity to the appellant, the insurance company, to be heard. However, it is made clear that any amount paid to the respondent-claimant shall not be recovered for the time beingand it would be subject to the result of the final decision of the Tribunal. No costs.