JUDGMENT :

Rekha Palli, J.

CM APPL. 44493/2022 in CM(M) 1087/2022

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 1087/2022, CM(M) 1098/2022, CM(M) 1104/2022 & CM(M) 1117/2022

1. The present decision disposes of four petitions, assailing four orders, all dated 30.05.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi. Since the issues involved in all these petitions are identical, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The present petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, preferred by the claimants, seeks to assail the order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT). Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rejected the four claim petitions preferred by the petitioners primarily on the ground that, despite opportunities having been granted to them, they had failed to file copies of documents necessary for adjudication of their claim.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts of CM (M) 1087/2022 are being referred to hereinafter.

4. On 18.01.2022, when the petitioner, namely Nekhil, was travelling with his family members in car bearing registration no. DL 6 CQ 6722, the same collided with a trolla near Ateli bypass village Dhanonda, Haryana at about 10 PM. In the said accident, while the petitioner and his two family members namely Mr. Kushal and Mr. Chandra Shekhar received grevious injuries, Mr. Harsh, a co-passenger and one Mr. Hemant, the driver of the car, expired. Separate claim petitions were preferred on behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased as also the persons injured in the said accident. When the petitions were listed before the learned Tribunal on 11.04.2022, the learned Tribunal, while noting the documents based on which the claim petitions had been filed, referred to the documents which it considered relevant but had not been filed, adjourned the matter for 30.05.2022, in order to enable the petitioners to file copies of the same.

5. On 30.05.2022, when the matter was next taken up for consideration, the learned Tribunal, while observing that the petitioners had not filed copies of the requisite documents, proceeded to hear arguments advanced by Mr. Ranjit K. Rai, proxy counsel on behalf of Mr. Manoj Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. Vide its impugned order, the learned Tribunal has dismissed all the claim petitions by holding that the petitioners had not filed the documents which were necessary for adjudication of their claims. Moreover there was no information available on the record to show as to whether the investigation by the police was complete and whether a chargesheet had been filed. While rejecting the claim petitions for want of documents, the learned Tribunal also expressed its anguish on filing of frivolous claim petitions in Motor Accident Claim Tribunals in Delhi in respect of motor accidents in other States on account of the office of the insurance company being located in Delhi.

7. In support of the petitions, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as the learned Tribunal, has while dismissing the petitions for want of documents, adopted a hyper technical approach and has failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioners had lost two family members as recently as on 18.01.2022. Even otherwise, as the fateful accident took place in Haryana, it was not possible for them to collect all the necessary documents in such a short span of about one and a half months as granted by the learned Tribunal.

8. He submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated these aspects and granted reasonable time to the petitioners to file copies of documents necessary for adjudication of their claims specially when on 30.05.2022, a request for an adjournment was made on their behalf. On the other hand, despite the absence of the arguing counsel for the parties, the learned