RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

                  Saifullan Khan

                  Vs.

                  Doongar Ram

                  Civil Writ Petn. No.5334 of 2000
                           (S.K. Keshote, J.)

                  17.07.2001

                  ORDER

S.K. Keshote, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are
challenging the validity, legality and correctness of the order dated 21-6-2000 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in claim case No.108/95.

2. Respondent Nos.1 and 4 are neither necessary nor proper parties to this petition and
their names are deleted. So far as other respondents are concerned, Mr. Virendra
Lodha put appearance. The Registry is directed to make necessary endorsement to this
extent in the cause title. The matter is complete. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have already
filed their reply to the petition. On the request of the learned counsel for the parties,
the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioners' uncle late Shri Mehmood
Hussain Khan died due to motor cycle accident driven by the respondent. The
petitioner raised a claim for Rs. ten lacs before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
During the course of the statements of the claimants the Presiding Officer of the
Tribunal passed the impugned order. By this order he has stopped the trial of the claim
petition on the ground that until the petitioners filed a succession certificate it cannot
be proceeded. Hence this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no provision under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereunder a claimant has to produce along with it a
succession certificate. In his submission to present and to prosecute a claim petition
the claimants need not produce a succession certificate. It has next been contended
that the learned Tribunal acted highly arbitrary to stop the proceedings of the claim
petition only on the ground that until a succession certificate is produced by the
petitioners it cannot be proceeded. This way the Tribunal has stopped the proceedings
of the claim for compensation for the death of the uncle of petitioners. Lastly it is
contended that so far as continuation of proceedings is concerned under the Motor
Vehicles Act for the death of uncle of petitioners arising out of motor vehicle accident,
no such insistence of production of succession certificate could have been there. It is
not the case where the Court has to disburse the amount of the compensation to the
petitioners. Carrying this contention further, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that no other person has come up before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
to claim the amount of compensation if any ultimately awarded in the claim case.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for respondents submitted
that the matter pertains to the right to receive the compensation and when the
petitioners are nephews of deceased for whose death the claim has been lodged the
succession certificate is to be produced. Learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that even where no other person has lodged any claim of the compensation
the Tribunal is within its jurisdiction to direct the petitioners to file the succession
certificate.

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions raised by the learned
counsel for the parties.

7. Mr. Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for the respondents is unable to show any
provision from the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the rules framed thereunder for the
trial of the claim petition succession certificate is to be produced along with the claim
petition. He is also unable to show any provision from the Act or the rules framed
thereunder that unless a succession certificate is produced the claim petition is not
maintainable or its trial cannot proceed. In view of this fact it can reasonably be
presumed, assumed accepted that there is no such Impediment in the way of the
claimants to present the petition and to proceed with the trial. In the absence of any
provision requiring the presentation of succession certificate by the claimants, the
Tribunal has certainly acted arbitrarily and also against a very conception behind this
socio economic provision. The learned Tribunal has not given a reasoned order. The
trial was in progress and abruptly it was stopped with the condition that until
succession certificate is produced, it cannot be proceeded. The Tribunal has to give
the reasons or grounds in support of its order. It is a cryptic order and only on this
ground this petition could have been allowed. Where the Tribunal stops the trial of the
claim petition filed by the claimants for the compensation for the death of a person in
a motor vehicle accident, it is a serious matter. It is a right of the claimants to file a
claim petition and unless there is any legal impediment in its maintainability the trial
thereof cannot be stopped. The Tribunal in such matter should have been very careful
and cautious and before taking the right of the claimants to maintain and proceed with
the trial of the claim petition, it has to record cogent and justified grounds in support
of its order. It is not in dispute that no other person has lodged any claim of
compensation for the death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident, it is also not in
dispute that the petitioners are nephew of the deceased. It is not case of the
respondents that the petitioners are not the legal heirs of the deceased. At the most it
may be a case where the petitioners would not have been only the legal heirs of the
deceased but for that the other side could have raised a objection or those other legal
heirs would have come up before the Tribunal. Where this lis is there between the
claimants, I appreciate the Tribunal may be justified to ask them to get their right
decided and to produce the succession certificate. Whether in such case also it is
desirable on the part of the Tribunal to stop the proceedings of the trial of the claim
petition is another question needs to be considered. The other legal heirs are also and
should have been in the Interest of early finalisation of the claim petition. In such
matter also there may not be any Justification to stop the trial of the claim petition.
The claim petition is to be decided expeditiously and at the most at the stage of order
for disbursement and investment of the amount of compensation, this course could
have been adopted. The matter needs to be examined and considered from another
aspect also. It is desirable and time and again the Courts have also observed or
directed for expeditious disposal of the motor vehicle accident claims cases. In view of
this fact otherwise also there should not have been any order of Tribunal to stop the
trial of the claim petition. The possibility of false, claim petitions are being filed or the
Tribunal may have its own reservation regarding the right of the claimants to receive
the compensation for the death of their alleged deceased relative died in the motor
vehicle accident or any other reason but in such cases also it is difficult to appreciate
this approach of the Tribunal. In such matter at the most the Tribunal to find out way
that all the legal heirs of deceased may have a notice of the claim petition and if they
have any right to receive the compensation may lodge their claim before it. For this
the appropriate course may be to invite the objections against the claim application
filed by the claimants by giving a public notice at their cost or where the claimants are
poor persons for this cost they would have been provided free legal services. This
course is not adopted by the Tribunal. To go for and obtain a succession certificate
though in talk it may be simple thing but if we go by the reality of things and in the
present scenario it heavily costs. The applicants have to spend huge amount for
proceedings to be initiated for succession certificate in the competent Court. Where
the objections are there against the application filed by the petitioner for grant of
succession certificate it becomes a suit and there is a fullfledged trial and naturally it
will result in causing heavy financial burden to the applicants. It is high time where
the Courts are to take care that unnecessarily the financial burden may not fall on the
shoulder of the poor litigants. As far as possible all Presiding Officers of the Tribunals
or the Courts to see that there may not be unnecessary litigation in the Court that too
which is altogether avoidable. Even in a case where the Tribunal has reached to the
stage of the disbursement and investment of the amount of compensation awarded and
a succession certificate required instead of demanding it the Tribunal to adopt a course
to invite objections from all the concerned persons and decide the matter and pass
order for disbursement and investment of the amount of compensation awarded for the
death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident.

8. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the order impugned of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal cannot be sustained and it is quashed and set aside. The respondents
are directed to pay the cost of the petition to the petitioners. The claim petition is of
the year 1995, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Jaipur is directed to decide the
same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order which is to be filed by the petitioners. The petition is allowed as indicated
above.

Petition allowed.