Case Note & Summary
The appellants, the widow and minor sons of Nilesh Arlekar, filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation for his death in a vehicular accident on 19.04.2010 at Calangute, Goa. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that the claimants failed to prove the involvement of the Activa motorcycle bearing no. GA-03-T-0188 and its driver, respondent no.1, in the accident. The Tribunal also did not decide the issue of quantum of compensation, observing that it 'does not arise'. The appellants challenged this judgment and award dated 17.09.2014 in the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The High Court found that the Tribunal's approach was erroneous. The court noted that the First Information Report (FIR) and the oral testimony of the widow clearly established the involvement of the offending vehicle and its driver. The court held that the Tribunal ought to have decided all issues, including the quantum of compensation, to avoid remand. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Bimlesh and Ors. v. New India Assurance Company Limited, which held that the Tribunal must decide all issues. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's award and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the issue of quantum of compensation, directing the Tribunal to decide the same within six months. The appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Rejection of Claim - Erroneous Approach - Tribunal rejected claim on ground that claimants failed to prove involvement of vehicle and driver - Held that the Tribunal's approach was contrary to law and evidence on record, including FIR and oral testimony, which established involvement - Appeal allowed, matter remanded for fresh consideration on quantum (Paras 3-6). B) Motor Accident Claims - Duty of Tribunal - Deciding All Issues - Tribunal must decide all issues including quantum of compensation even if claim is rejected on preliminary issue - Held that failure to do so leads to unnecessary remand and was contrary to law laid down in Bimlesh v. New India Assurance (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim petition on the ground that the claimants failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle and its driver in the accident, and whether the Tribunal ought to have decided all issues including quantum of compensation.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment and award dated 17.09.2014 set aside. Claim Petition No.43/2010 restored to the file of the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the issue of quantum of compensation. Tribunal to decide within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal must decide all issues including quantum
- even if claim is rejected on preliminary issue
- involvement of vehicle can be proved by oral evidence and FIR
- standard of proof in MACT is preponderance of probabilities.
