Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident claim petition filed by Narshibhai Naranbhai Chamundiya (since deceased, represented by his heirs) seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for injuries sustained in a Chhakda Rickshaw accident on 03.09.1999. The claimant alleged that the rickshaw driver lost control due to an uneven road surface, causing him to be thrown out and grievously injured. He was treated at Bhavsingji Hospital and later at Gokul Hospital, Rajkot, and claimed to be earning Rs.4,000/- per month as a helper in Porbandar Municipality. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Porbandar, rejected the claim petition on 16.03.2009 solely on the ground that respondent no.4 (Vejabhai Aavdabhai Rabari) could not be served with notice. The claimants appealed to the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The appellant's counsel argued that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is benevolent legislation and the Tribunal should have allowed the claim since the insurance company was contesting. The insurance company's counsel argued that the claim was filed in 1999 and the Tribunal's decision was correct. The High Court found that the rejection was improper and that the claim should be decided on merits. The court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication, directing the claimants to take steps to serve respondent no.4 or delete his name, and the Tribunal to decide the claim within six months.
Headnote
A) Motor Accident Claims - Rejection of Claim Petition - Non-service of Notice - The Tribunal rejected the claim petition because respondent no.4 could not be served. The High Court held that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a benevolent legislation and the claim should not be rejected solely on that ground, especially when the insurance company was contesting the claim. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication on merits. (Paras 7-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim petition solely on the ground that one of the respondents could not be served with notice, despite the insurance company contesting the claim.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 16.03.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Porbandar in MACP No.259/1999 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits. The claimants are directed to take steps to serve respondent no.4 or delete his name. The Tribunal shall decide the claim petition within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988 is a benevolent legislation
- Non-service of notice on one respondent does not warrant rejection of claim petition
- Claim petition should be decided on merits even if some respondents are not served
