Court No. - 4
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 163 of 2011 Appellant :- Smt. Kamla Singh Respondent :- The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Another Counsel for Appellant :- Neerja Singh,Sharve Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 1.
Seen the office report dated 9.3.2018, 17.3.2018, 23.3.2018, the service upon the respondent no. 2 is deemed to be sufficient in view of provisions of Chapter VIII, Rule 12 Explanation (II) of the High Court Rules.
This application has been filed on behalf of the appellant with the prayer to condone the delay of 7 days in filing the present FAFO.
The delay condonation application is supported by an affidavit.
Having perused the averments made in the delay condonation application as well as the affidavit filed in support thereof, we are of the view that the cause shown for the delay in filing this appeal is sufficient. Accordingly, the delay of 7 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
This First Appeal From Order has been filed by the claimant-appellant against the judgement and award dated 4.10.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal / Special Judge (E.C. Act), Allahabad in M.A.C.P. No. 591 of 2004 filed by the claimant-appellant against the opposite parties claiming Rs. 10 lacs as compensation for the death of her son Rana Jai Singh has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim petition has been rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that the claimant-appellant has failed to adduce any evidence for proving her claim as set up by her in claim petition, without giving a reasonable opportunity to the claimant- appellant to lead evidence for proving her claim. She next submitted that the hyper technical approach adopted by the Tribunal by closing opportunity of the appellant to lead evidence and rejecting the claim petition on the ground that the claimant-appellant failed to adduce any evidence to establish the claim that the deceased had died in an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver has resulted in a total miscarriage of justice and hence, the aforesaid matter may be remitted back to the Tribunal for deciding the claim petition afresh after giving opportunity to the claimant-appellant to lead evidence in support of her claim.
Per contra, Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 made submissions in support of the impugned judgement and award. However, he does not dispute the fact that reasonable opportunity was not given by the tribunal to the claimant-appellant to prove her claim.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned judgement and award, we find that the owner of the offending vehicle has admitted that Rana Jai Singh had died in an accident which involved the offending vehicle. Record further shows that reasonable opportunity to lead evidence was not given to the claimant-appellant by the tribunal.
For the aforesaid reasons and keeping in view the settled principles of law that rules of procedure are designed to promote the ends of justice and not to throttle the same, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgement and award passed by passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal / Special Judge (E.C. Act), Allahabad in M.A.C.P. No. 591 of 2004. The matter is remitted back to the M.A.C.T. with a direction to decide the claim of the claimant-appellant within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving opportunity to lead evidence for proving their respective case.
Order Date :- 27.3.2018 Manoj