Raghunath vs The Presiding Officer, Mact And ...
2000 Latest Caselaw 472 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. Petitioner, an old man of 60 years and a resident of Bihar, suffered a tragedy in the loss of his son, Gopal, aged 22 years, in a road accident on 13.7.1999. Petitioner filed a claim for grant of compensation under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on 16.8.1999, while being personally present. Shri S.L. Bhayana, learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, declined to issue summons and this led the petitioner to file the present petition in October 1999. A learned Single Judge of this Court ordered 'Rule' to be issued.

2. Petitioner moved CM.221/2000, seeking interim directions so that, at least, the petition could be registered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma, Delhi. Notice of the application was directed to be issued to Shri U. Hazarika, Standing Counsel, Union of India and Shri S.K. Kaul, Senior Advocate.

3. Let me notice the factual matrix of this case:

(i) Petitioner filed the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 16.8.1999, annexing therewith the Site Plan, the seizure memo of the offending truck, certificate of insurance, registration book of the offending truck, driving licence of the truck driver, post-mortem report, superdarinama, charge-sheet and the photocopy of the FIR.

(ii) The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, finding the documents as not legible, directed the return of the petition for filing legible copies. Thereupon petitioner moved an application on 16.8.1999 itself, through his counsel, pointing out that the charge-sheet was also filed alongwith the petition, from which the name of the driver could be ascertained and the petition could be registered, even if the Court was finding the FIR to be not legible.

(iii) The application also records that the Reader of the Court was requested to take cognizance of and rely on the copy of the FIR which is sent by the Investigating Officer to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for registration of the petition. Further, it was not specified as to which documents were not found legible by the Tribunal. Petitioner craved indulgence of the Court since he had come from Bihar. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal passed the following order:

"Pr: Shri Lokesh Kumar, counsel for the petitioner.

He has moved an application which is being disposed of. I have perused the file. The copy of the FIR filed by the petitioner is not legible. He is directed to file legible copy of the FIR and the petition be, therefore, returned to the petitioner for filing the same. He is also directed to file the copy of the ration card of the petitioner and he is also directed to bring the original ration card and original photo identify card and show the same to the Court at the time of presenting the petition. The petition is hereby returned to the petitioner for doing the needful."

(iii) Petitioner did not yet give up his effort to have the petition registered and moved yet another application on 17.8.1999. Petitioner, recounting the documents filed, i.e. the FIR, charge-sheet, post-mortem report, etc., as received from the police, urged that he was not in possession of the original documents, which were in the custody of the police and on the criminal court file. Petitioner urged that he would prove the required documents during trial. It was again prayed that the petition be registered and the summons be issued. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal thereupon passed the following order on 18.8.1999."

"Pr: Shri Lokesh Kumar, counsel for the petitioner.

An application has been moved under Section 151, CPC, on behalf of the petitioner. Heard. No ground. The application is dismissed.

Petition be returned to the petitioner for compliance of order dated 16.8.1999."

4. Petitioner, by the present petition, seeks quashing of the aforesaid two orders and directions for registration of the claim petition and issuance of the summons in the petition. Petitioner also prays for formulation of comprehensive guidelines for the purposes of giving directions to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Courts for the procedure to be followed by them in the cases for compensation claims.

5. Notices in this case had been issued to the Standing Counsel for Union of India, even though Union of India had not been formally added as a party. Union of India and the NCT of Delhi are directed to be imp leaded as parties. Mr. V.K. Shali, Standing Counsel, NCT of Delhi, who is present in Court, accepts notice and Shri S.K. Kaul, Sr. Advocate, and Mr. U. Hazarika, Advocate, have appeared on behalf of the Union of India.

6. Noting the plight of the petitioner, who suffered a bereavement and yet, despite all steps taken by him, has been denied issuance of summons in his petition claiming compensation by adoption of a hyper-technical approach, wholly unsustainable at law. I propose to give directions for the same at this stage itself, leaving the question of formulation of guidelines for a later date. Counsel for the parties who are appearing, also request for time to make submission with regard to the guidelines that ought to be issued.

7. The impugned orders passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal betray a compete non-application of mind and a hyper-technical and insensitive approach, which is contrary to the mandate of the statute. This was a case where the petitioner had filed the seizure memo of the truck, the driving licence of the truck driver, post-mortem report, copy of the charge-sheet and also the election card of the petitioner, for purposes of identification. At the stage of issuance of summons all that the Tribunal has to satisfy itself is that an accident has taken place and petitioner has, prima facie, produced on record some document to show that petitioner is the one interested in compensation and related to the victim or the deceased. The question of proving the documents has to be gone into during trial. Assuming the FIR was not legible, the name of the truck driver could be verified from the charge-sheet and the other documents placed on record. There was no justification or requirement to direct the petitioner to produce the ration card, despite his having pointed out that he did not possess one and having produced the election identify card for purposes of identification. In any case, the question of personal verification of the petitioner would arise at the time of disbursement of interim compensation and not at the stage of issuance of the summons.

8. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal failed to consider the purpose and intent of this social legislation and the duty cast upon the court to impart expeditious justice to victims of accidents, without adding to their miseries and woes by a callous and indifferent approach, which even runs counter to the mandate of the statute, as would be evident from the following.

Reference is invited to Section 158 sub-section (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under:

"As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or a report under this section is completed by a police officer, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same also to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer."

Section 160 is again enacted, obliging the Registering Authority or the Incharge of the Police Station to furnish such information and documents to persons who are entitled to claim compensation. Reference is further invited to sub-section (4) of Section 166, which reads as under:

"Where a police officer has filed a copy of the report regarding an accident to a Claims Tribunal under this Act, the claims Tribunal may, if it thinks necessary so to do, treat the report as if it were an application for compensation under this Act."

9. From the foregoing it would be seen that whereas the Parliament has enacted a provision which would enable the report itself received by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to be treated as an application for compensation, the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in this case has declined to issue summons on grounds which, to say the least, are wholly unsustainable. While the power of the court to call for legible copies is indisputable, but it must be kept in mind that copies of FIR given are generally not legible and to return the claim petition on this ground was totally unwarranted, especially when other documents were available. There was also no justification to insist on production of ration card when the identity card issued by the Election Commission had been produced.

10. The impugned orders are set aside. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is directed to issue summons in the claim petition forthwith. Petitioner shall appear before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ON 25.5.2000, when the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal shall fix an early date for notice to the respondents in the claim petition as well as in the application seeking interim compensation.

11. The question of laying down the comprehensive guidelines and the procedure to be followed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal would be taken up on 24.07.2000. Counsels may file on record their suggestions in this regard.

12. A copy of this order be sent to all the MACTs.