2012 INSC 0191
Bimla Devi & Others
v.
Satbir Singh & Others
(Supreme Court Of India)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.
RADHAKRISHNAN
Criminal Appeal No. 2706 Of 2012 | 28-02-2012

1. Leave granted.

2. This is indeed an unfortunate case, wherein on account of technicalities, the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, ``the claims Tribunal") proceeded to dismiss
the Appellants- Claimants' claim petition No. 75 of 2006 on 13.11.2007. Feeling aggrieved
thereof, Claimants preferred FAO No. 1543 of 2008, before learned Single judge of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, but unfortunately that also came to be dismissed
on 24.3.2009. Thus unsuccessful Claimants are Appellants before us, praying the Looking to
the facts & features of the case, either they be awarded just, proper & adequate compensation
by this Court itself or it is found that their Claim petition is lacking in material particulars &
evidence, then matter be remitted to the Claims Tribunal, for fresh decision on merits & in
accordance with law.

3. Despite service on notice, Respondent nos 1 & 2, i.e. the owner & driver, have not
appeared before us, Respondent No.3 Insurance Company is represented by Smt. Nanita
Sharma, Advocate & has filed counter affidavit.

4. In the counter, it is specific case of the Insurance Company that factum of accident has not
been established by the Appellants. Since the accident itself could not be proved, the question
of grant of compensation to the Appellant of death of Ompal did not arise. It has also been
contended that as against findings of two Courts recorded against the Appellants, no case has
been made out for interference in this appeal.

5. We have accordingly heard Mr. Yashpal Rangi, learned counsel for the Appellants & Mrs.
Nanita Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 & perused the record.

6. Thumbnail sketch of the facts of the case areas mentioned hereinbelow.

1  SpotLaw
7. Deceased Ompal was travelling in a Three Wheeler on 15.5.2006. Deceased was
accompanied by co-passenger Sunita & Janak Raj along with others. F.I.R. dated 16.5.2006
was lodged by Sunita, aforesaid co-passenger injured in the same accident. It is said that the
accident pad occurred on account of rash & negligent driving of the Three Wheeler by its
driver. On account of it, the same had dashed against the tree due to which Ompal had
sustained grievous injuries & later succumbed to the same. They had filed a Claim Petition
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short, `the Act') before the Claims Tribunal
for awarding compensation to them for death of Ompal.

8. For the reasons beyond the control of the Claimants, they were no able to produce the
evidence of co-passengers i.e. Sunita & Janak raj. They had summoned records of Criminal
Case No.196 & evidence of Ahalmad was recorded, which established lodging of the F.I.R.
by Sunita on 16.5.2006, the Postmortem Report of he deceased Ompal & his M.L.R. probably
on the strength of the scanty evidence produce before the Claims Tribunal, Claimants were of
the opinion that the factum of the accident & death of Ompal have been established,
Therefore, they did not think it proper or necessary to examine co-passengers of the Three
Wheeler. In the result, the Claim petition came to be dismissed. The appeal filed by them also
proved to be futile.

9. Here, the Appellants have filed affidavit of janak Raj & they have also taken us through
the statement of Sunita, recorded by Police under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
after she had lodged the F.I.R.

10. Thus, looking to the matter from all angles, we are of the considered opinion that one
more opportunity should be given to the Appellants so that may be able to prove the factum
of the accident & if they are able to so successfully, then they may also be able to get just,
adequate and proper compensation. Only on account of hyper-technicality & niceties of that
Claimants should not be thrown out at the there should. That is not the purpose of which the
Claims Tribunals are established.

11. No doubt, it is true that claim case has not been contested in a proper & legal manner, but
that should not be sufficient to throw the claim petition, so as to deny the Claimants of their
just compensation. It is always desirable, rather a necessity in law, that the matter, as far as
possible, be decided on merits & in accordance with law. According to us, that has not been
done, may be account of several mistakes committed.

12. In Claim Case, it is difficult to get witnesses, much less eye witness, thus extremely strict
proof of facts in accordance with provision of Indian Evidence Act may not be adhered to
religiously. Some amount of flexibility has to be given to those cases, but it may not be
construed that a complete go-by is to be given to the Indian Evidence Act. From the facts as
unfolded hereinabove, it is clear that Appellants have been callous & negligent in prosecuting

2  SpotLaw
the matter & did not do so in right earnest. We cannot take a pendente view of he matter os as
to shut the doors of justice to the Appellants. Motor Vehicles Act is a social piece of
legislation & has been enacted with intent & object to facilitate the Claimants victims to get
redress for the loss of loosing of family member of for injuries at ana early date. In any case,
money cannot be any substitute for it, but in long run it may have some soothing effect. Thus,
it is desirable to adopt a more realistic, Pragmatic & liberal approach in these matters. In our
considered opinion, interest of justice would be served & fully met if appellants are afforded
at least one more opportunity to prove their case to the satisfaction of the Claims Tribunal.

13. In this view of the matter, we deem it fit & proper to remit the matter to the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani to afford an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence
& to prove the factum of accident, the age & nature of work that was being conducted or
carried on by deceased Ompal & finally, if they are able to establish the aforesaid facts, then
to work out the amount of compensation to which the Appellants would be entitled. The
Respondents would also be at liberty to lead evidence in rebuttal, it they so desire.

14. In the light of this, the impugned award passed by the Claims tribunal dated 13.11.2007 &
the order passed by the learned Single Judge of he High Court dated 24.3.2009 are hereby set
aside & quashed & the appeal is accordingly allowed. The matter be decided afresh de novo,
meaning thereby that the parties would be at liberty to lead evidence afresh. This we are
saying so, on account of several documents which have been brought to our notice for the
first time & could not be placed before the Claims Tribunal.

15. The parties would be at liberty to file additional documents to prove their respective case.
Since the matter is old, we direct the parties to appear before he Claims Tribunal on
29.3.2012. The Claims Tribunal would endeavour to dispose of the said Claim Petition on
merits & in accordance with law within a period of nine months from the said date.

16. Appeal disposed of.

3  SpotLaw