JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. R. Banaulikar learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. Though the respondents are served, there is no appearance on their behalf.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 17.09.2014 made in Claim Petition No.43/2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal).

3. The Claim Petition No.43/2010 was instituted by the widow (aged 27 years) and her two minor sons, Harsh (aged 4 years old) and Khushal (aged 2 years old) claiming compensation on account of the death of their husband/father, Nilesh Arlekar, in a vehicular accident that took place on 19.04.2010 at Calangute, Goa. The Tribunal has rejected the claim and declined to award any compensation to the claimants on the specious plea that the claimants failed to prove the involvement of the Activa motorcycle bearing no.GA-03-T-0188 and its driver Mr. S.D. Rocky Shingni (respondent no.1) in the accident. The Tribunal also did not bother to answer all the issues that had been framed in the petition, including the issue of the quantum of compensation, by simply observing that such an issue “does not arise”.

4. In matters of this nature, the Tribunal must answer all the issues so that there is no occasion for any remand once the issue of maintainability or the issue of rashness and negligence of the driver, the issue of involvement of the alleged offending vehicle, etc. is decided in favour of the claimant. The approach adopted by the Tribunal, in this case, is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bimlesh and Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 8 SCC 591. In paragraphs 7, 8 & 9 this is what the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed :

“7. Section 166 of the Act, 1988 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Section 165(1) may be made, inter alia, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased where death has resulted from the accident.

8. Section 169 makes a provision that the Claims Tribunal shall follow the summary procedure subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal except to the extent provided in sub-section (2) of Section 169 and the Rules. The whole object of summary procedure is to ensure that claim application is heard and decided by the Claims Tribunal expeditiously.

9. The inquiry under Section 168 and the summary procedure that the Claims Tribunal has to follow do not contemplate the controversy arising out of claim application being decided in piecemeal. The Claims Tribunal is required to dispose of all issues one way or the other in one go while deciding the claim application. The objection raised by the Insurance Company about maintainability of claim petition is intricately connected with its liability which in the facts and circumstances of the case is dependent on determination of the effect of the additional premium paid by the insured to cover the risk of the driver and other terms of the policy including terms of the policy contained in Para 5. Since all the issues (points for determination) are required to be considered by the Claims Tribunal together in light of the evidence that may be let in by the parties and not in piecemeal, we do not think it proper to consider the rival contentions on merits at this stage. Suffice it to say that matter needs to be sent back to the Claims Tribunal.”

5. In this case, upon evaluation of the evidence on record, I am quite satisfied that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and that the accident was not caused on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent no.1 (Rocky Shingni). Reasons for this will be shortly discussed in the course of this judgment and award. The accident, in this case, took place on 19.04.2010. The claimants, as noted earlier, are the widow and the two mino