Tribunals have an obligation to ensure just compensation and should not penalize claimants for procedural shortcomings.

1. Kapil Dev, husband of the first appellant and son of the other two appellants died in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 06.10.2014. An accident claim case seeking compensation was instituted on their behalf through counsel on 27.10.2014 before the tribunal on the averments that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of truck bearing registration No.RJ-01-GB-6533 by the first respondent, it being registered in the name of the second respondent and insured against third party risk with the third respondent.

2. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the tribunal), by order dated 27.10.2014, issued notices to all the said respondents. The proceedings in the case were, however, closed by order dated 12.08.2015. An application for revival of the proceedings moved on 25.08.2015 resulted in fresh notices being issued. The said application for reasons which cannot be fathomed was withdrawn curiously by the counsel on 12.10.2015. On 27.11.2015, another application was moved for revival which was dismissed by the tribunal by order dated 11.01.2016. It is the said order which is assailed by the appeal at hand.

3. On notice, only the insurance company (third respondent before the tribunal) has appeared, there being no presence on behalf of other respondents at the stage of hearing though they have been duly served and had earlier appeared on 21.12.2016 through counsel.

4. The proceedings recorded by the tribunal on the file pertaining to the claim petition of the appellants have left the court deeply disturbed. The manner in which the claim petition in a fatal accident case was handled has been most insensitive and, therefore, a cause for concern. This can be best demonstrated by quoting verbatim all the proceedings on the file from beginning till end, such that this kind of handling does not become a model to follow in future. They are set out as under:-

“27.10.2014

Fresh petition received by way of assignment. Be checked and registered.

Present: Mr. Prahlad, Advocate alongwith father of deceased.

I have perused the contents of the petition and the accompanying documents.

Issue notice of the petition to all the respondents on PF/RC/AD and courier for 07.01.2015.”

“07.01.2015

Present: Mr. Prahlad Kumar, counsel for petitioner.

R3 is absent despite service as per report over process perused.

R1 and R2 have remained unserved.

Both R1 and R2 be served afresh on PF/RC/AD.

Issue show cause notice upon Chief Manager (Legal) of insurance company as to why company be not proceeded for failure to come up despite being informed as per mandate of law.

Be listed on 21.03.2015.”

“21.03.2015

Present :

None for the petitioner despite calls.

R-1 and R-2 have remained unserved.

Sh. V.P. Gore Manager Incharge alongwith counsel Sh. Vinod Kaul for the insurance company.

Vakalatnama filed on behalf of respondent no.3 and an application filed praying for recalling the show cause notice. Reasons cited in the application. In view application, the application stands allowed. The order to that extend is hereby recalled.

The WS sought to be placed on record cannot be considered. The insurance company is directed to file WS within 40 days, failing which company shall be burdened of Rs.5000/-. Respondent no.1 and 2 be served afresh by way of PF/RC returnable by 27.05.2015.”

“27.05.2015

Pr: SH. Prahlad Kumar, counsel for the petitioner.

Counsel for R1 and R2.

WS is already filed on 22.05.15. Copy supplied.

Sh. Vinod Kaul, counsel for R3.

WS/objections filed on behalf of R3. Copy provided.

Compliance not made by the petitioners. Let requisite documents/bills of the criminal case record be supplied to the insurance company within a month. Be listed for 12.08.15.”

“12.8.15

Pr. Sh. Prahlad Kumar, proxy counsel for petitioner.

It is 02:20 pm.

Sh. Viod Kaul, Ld. Counsel for insurance company.

The previous are not complied with, nor the petitioners have appeared since morning. Counsel for petitioners states that they have not contacted him. Under such circumstances, this c