The Tribunal must decide all issues in a claim petition, including compensation, applying the standard of preponderance of probabilities, not strict proof.

JUDGMENT :

(M.S. Sonak, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Milton Marshal for the appellant and Mr. James Lopes for respondent no.3-insurance company.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and Award dated 11.12.2023, by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) dismissed Claim Petition No.90/2019 on the ground that the claimant (mother of the 28-year-old deceased Nagesh) was unable to establish that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving by the first respondent, i.e., the driver of Ashok Leyland Truck bearing registration No.KA-23-A-9061 (offending vehicle). This was despite the fact that the JMFC, by judgment and order dated 16.02.2021, convicted the first Respondent for rash and negligent driving under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The Tribunal, as it appears to have become routine, after answering the issue of rashness and negligence against the mother of the deceased, did not bother to determine the compensation or answer the issue of what would be the just compensation. This is, again, despite the fact that repeated decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court exhorting the Courts and Tribunals to determine all the issues that arise before them.

4. Recently, in the case of Akash Choudhary v/s. Mr. Suman Bagari and Ors. - First Appeal No.38/2023 decided on 21.03.2024, this Court was called upon to deal with a similar award made by the same Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. Not deciding the issue of just compensation is quite serious because it is virtually in defiance of several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court. In Akash Choudhary (supra), the decision of this Court in Neha Arlekar and Ors. v/s. S. D. Rocky and Ors., which summarises several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, was specifically cited. Still, after deciding on the issue of rashness and negligence, the Presiding Officer virtually refused to decide on the issue of just compensation. Even the observations of this Court that such an approach is most unfortunate seemed to have no effect.

5. In Mr. Oswald Caldeira v/s. Devandra Naik and Ors. - First Appeal No.46/2023 decided on 12.02.2024, this Court was constrained to observe the following in paragraphs 3 to 9:-

"3. However, after recording this finding, the Tribunal did not bother to record any finding on other issues, particularly on the quantum of compensation. In doing so, the Tribunal acted in breach of several rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and this Court requiring the Courts and Tribunals to avoid shortcuts and decide all issues that fall for determination.

4. In Bimlesh v. New India Assurance Company Limited, (2010) 8 SCC 591, in paragraphs 7, 8 & 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Tribunal has to follow the summary procedure subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf. The Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is not strictly applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal except to the extent provided in Section 169 (2) of the MV Act and the Rules made thereunder. The whole object of the summary procedure is to ensure that the Claim Petition is heard and decided expeditiously by the Claims Tribunal. In paragraph 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Claims Tribunal must dispose of all issues one way or the other while deciding the claim petition.

5. Therefore, the Tribunals should not dispose of the Claim Petitions based on some preliminary issue, usually raised by the Insurance Company about maintainability or otherwise. So also, even after holding that rashness and negligence are not proven, the Tribunals should not neglect to decide on other issues, including the issue of the quantum of compensation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that since all the issues (points for determination) are required to be considered by the Claims Tribunal together in the light of the evidence that may be led in by the parties and not piecemeal, often matters are required to be remanded. Accordingly, in Bimlesh (sup