Sh.Naresh Kumar & Anr. vs Sh.Bhagirath & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4201 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 29.8.2011


+            CM(M) No.1318/2008 & CM No.16722/2008



SH.NARESH KUMAR & ANR.                           ...........Appellants

                         Through:    Mr.Harish Pandey, Advocate.

                    Versus

SH.BHAGIRATH & ANR.                              ..........Respondents
                  Through:           None.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
        see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?               Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has impugned the order dated 19.9.2008 vide

which the objection of the respondents that the present petition is

not maintainable has been dismissed.

2. Record shows that the claimants Bhagirath and Asha Devi

had instituted a claim petition seeking compensation for the death

of their minor child. In the written statement the objection was

that an earlier petition was filed by the claimant which had been

dismissed on 13.11.2003 and this fact has not been brought to the

notice of the court in the present petition; the present petition is

barred.

3. The impugned order had dismissed thisobjection. Reliance

had been placed upon a judgment of a Bench of Rajasthan High

Court as also another Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court to

support the stand that a hyper technical approach should not be

adopted and a humane approach should in fact be adopted while

dealing with motor accident claims.

4. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal had been set up with the

aim and object to dispense justice in a summary manner and to

effectively and expeditiously dispose of claims made by the poor

claimants who are accident victims; accident claimants as is a well

recognized fact are also from the poor strata of the society who

may not always be in a position to engage or afford a lawyer. It is

also a fact that the strict rules of evidence are not applicable to

claims which are 'enquired' before the Accident Tribunals;

procedure contemplated is an 'enquiry' and not a trial. The

underlying purpose is that innocent victims of road accident

should not suffer for want of strict proof of the accident; drivers

and owners should not be allowed to go scot-free. This is a

beneficial legislation which has been engrafted in order that 'just

compensation' is paid as early as possible to such claimants.

5. The Claim Tribunals have been set up under Chapter XII of

the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Its procedure and powers are

entailed in Section 169 of the Act; it contemplates an inquiry. The

impugned order had correctly recorded that a hyper technical

approached should not be adopted and merely because an earlier

claim petition had also been preferred by the parents of the victim

which fact had not been disclosed it would not be sufficient to

oust the present claim petition. Impugned order suffers from no

infirmity. Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

AUGUST 29, 2011 nandan