Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.52 seconds)The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Sunil Shivran Alias Sevaram Rabari vs Nirmalsing Triloksing on 28 August, 2018
In the case of Sunil Shivran @ Sevaram Rabari v.
Nirmalsing Triloksing & Others reported in 2019 (1) G.L.R.
694, it has been held that the claim petition cannot be
dismissed for default. It is the duty of the Tribunal to award
just and reasonable compensation based on material available
on record. The Tribunal has to call for relevant information
in Form No.56 from the Investigating Agency. The law
permits to record evidence by affidavit. When the claim
petition gives details of claim, nature of accident, the Tribunal
is required to award just compensation and further, no matter
can be disposed of without doing justice.
Joshi Rajendrakumar Popatlal vs Thakor Ramnaji Hamirji on 30 January, 2019
In the case of Joshi Rajendrakumar Popatlal v. Thakor
Ramnaji Hamirji and Others reported in 2019 (2) G.L.R. 1508,
it has been held that the Tribunal cannot dismiss claim
petition on the ground that the claimant has not produced
driving license, R.C. Book or Insurance policy of vehicle
involved in accident. The Tribunal is required to call for such
information from the Investigating Agency. It is mandatory for
the Investigating Agency to collect such information and
forward it to the Tribunal in Accident Information Report in
Form 54 under Rule 150 within 30 days. The Tribunal is
required to treat the said report as application for
compensation and award just and reasonable compensation to
the claimant without waiting for filing of claim petition. The
Court disapproved the conduct of the Tribunal in not calling
for said information from the Investigating Agency and the
order of the Tribunal was quashed and set aside. It was also
held that the claimant may disclose the said information only
if he is aware. The disclosure in the claim petition by the
driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle is sufficient.
The owner and driver though served with summons did not
appear, the insurance company appeared but did not file a
Page 9 of 10
Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:30:19 IST 2022
C/SCA/21789/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/10/2022
written statement. It was also held that there was no reason
for the Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition but the Tribunal
is required to call for Accident Information Report in Form 54
from the Investigating Officer.
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Sh. Vijay Prakash vs National Insurance Co. Ltd on 16 August, 2007
4. It appears that the learned tribunal dismissed the Motor
Accident Claim Petition holding that sufficient opportunities
had been given to the petitioners and the lawyers to proceed
Page 3 of 10
Downloaded on : Sun Dec 25 04:30:19 IST 2022
C/SCA/21789/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/10/2022
further with the claim petition, but none of them had taken
care to produce the documentary evidence in support of the
matter. Learned advocate Mr. Hakim submits that the
advocate on record had expired in the year 2013. Mr. Hakim
further submits that no vakalatnama in-fact was on record and
as per the observation of the learned tribunal, the application
of Exh.16 to file vakalatnama and to submit the written submit
was of the opponent no.3 - Insurance Company. The learned
tribunal should have kept in mind the benevolent object of the
Motor Vehicles Act and following the judgments and
proposition of law laid down in the case of Jay Prakash Vs.
National Insurance Company Ltd reported in (2010) 2 SCC
607 and in the case of Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary
and Others v. Malek Rafik Malek Himmatbhai reported in
2011 (2) G.L.R. 1324, the learned tribunal ought not to have
dismissed the matter.
1