1. In connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 04.06.2008 between Maruti Van bearing registration No.GJ-22A-252 and S.T. Bus No. MH-12-UA-8930 and in the said accident one Kanbhen Sunilbhai Agrwal, passenger of Maruti Van died in the said accident. Therefore, the father of the deceased, present respondent No.1 preferred claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.137 of 2009, u/s.163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Narmada. The said claim petition was allowed in part by judgment and award dated 30.09.2011. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant- Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.
2. It has been mainly contended on behalf of the appellant that the present appellant-Insurance Company has preferred application at Exh.33 praying to join the Driver of the S.T. bus as party respondent in the claim proceedings. However, the Tribunal has rejected the said application without recording any reasons. He further submitted that though specific contention regarding liability, negligence and other submissions were raised before the Tribunal, the same were not appreciated by the Tribunal in its proper perspective. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. v. Sinitha and others, (2012) 2 SCC 356 [2011 (13) SCALE 84], and it has been prayed that the matter be remanded to the Tribunal concerned.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents objected to the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant mainly on the ground that the Tribunal has dealt with every aspect of the case in detail. It is further submitted that since the driver of the S.T. bus was not found to be a necessary party in the claim proceedings, the Tribunal rejected the application Exh.33 preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company. Therefore, he submitted that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties. It appears from the record that in the claim proceedings, the appellant-Insurance Company had preferred application Exh.33, praying to join the driver of the S.T. bus as party respondent in the claim proceedings. However, the said application was rejected vide order dated 20.9.2011. A bare perusal of the said order, shows that the Tribunal has not given any cogent reasons, much less any reasons, while rejecting the said application. In other words, the order passed below Ex.h33 is a non-speaking order, the Tribunal ought to have recorded reasons while rejecting the application Exh.33. However, the same has not been done.
5. In the case of Sinitha(Supra) it has been held that the Tribunal is empowered to decide the issue regarding liability and negligence while deciding the application filed under section 163(A) of the M.V. Act. Since the order passed below Exh.33 is a non-speaking order and the Tribunal has decided the claim petition without following principle rendered in Sinitha's case (supra), it would be in the interest of justice that the Tribunal reconsiders the application Exh.33 as also the claim petition filed under Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act afresh.
6 In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the following order is passed:-
The impugned judgment and award dated 30.09.2011 passed in M.A.C.P. No.137 of 2009 and order dated 20.09.2011 passed below Exh.33 are quashed and set aside.
The matter is remanded to the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for adjudication afresh.
This Court has passed the aforesaid order in view of the fact that the Tribunal has not followed the procedure established by law and therefore the Tribunal may not be influenced by the order of this Court.
The amount invested in Fixed Deposit, as directed by this Court, shall be continued in Fixed Deposit and the claimants shall be entitled for the periodical interest on the said Deposit only up to the date of this judgment and order.
It is, however, made clear that interest accruing on the said Fixed Deposit shall be accumulated and will be adjusted at the time of the final award.
The amount awarded & already withdrawn by the claimant, pursuant to the impugned award, will be adjusted at the time of the final award.
Since the matter is pending since long, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than two years from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court.
It is observed that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter and the Tribunal shall consider the same afresh, without being influenced by the fact that this Court has quashed its earlier judgment and award.
R & P, if lying with this court, to be sent to the Tribunal forthwith.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.] pawan Top