The court emphasized the need for a sensitive and pragmatic approach in dealing with motor vehicle accident cases, highlighting the importance of considering the genuine difficulties faced by claimants in obtaining necessary documents.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India preferred by the claimant seeks to assail the award dated 09.01.2020 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in MAC 685/2018.

2. Vide the impugned award, the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioners on account of non-filling of requisite documents in support of their claim. The court, therefore, observed that no assistance was being provided by the petitioners, as they were being represented only by a junior counsel.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petition has been rejected by the learned Tribunal on merits, the present petition may be treated as an appeal assailing the award dated 09.01.2022 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. Taking into account that the present petition was filed way back in March, 2020 and no compensation whatsoever has been granted to the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 fairly does not oppose the petitioners' request.

5. The present petition will, accordingly, be treated as a MAC.APP. The Registry is directed to allocate a number to the appeal.

MAC.APP.______/2023(To Be Numbered)

6. The present appeal seeks to assail the award dated 09.01.2020 passed by the learned MACT, vide which the claim of the appellants was rejected inter alia on the ground that certified copies of the charge-sheet, income proof, employment proof, driving licence(DL), registration certificate(RC) and insurance policy had not been filed by the claimants.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that when the impugned order was passed on 09.01.2020, the specific stand of the appellants/claimants, before the learned Tribunal, was that all the relevant documents had already been filed before the Tribunal. He contends that if the documents were not found on the record, the Court, instead of dismissing the claim petition, ought to have granted an opportunity to the claimants to have the same placed on record. He, therefore, prays that the impugned award be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication of the appellants' claim on merits.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.1/insurer, supports the impugned award and submits that once the appellants did not, despite repeated opportunities, file the requisite documents, the learned Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim petition. He, therefore, prays that the appeal be dismissed.

9. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, even though I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that it was incumbent upon the appellants to file all the requisite documents for their claim petition to be adjudicated, the fact remains that the appellants, who had filed the claim were the widow and children of late Sh.Anil Kumar, who had lost his life in the accident, which took place in Jalandhar, Punjab and once, the appellants lost their sole earning member and that too in an accident in Jalandhar, Punjab, they would have faced difficulties in collecting the documents from there.

10. I may also note that, as recorded in the impugned order itself, it was the appellants' case before the learned Tribunal that the documents had already been filed. Even though the same were not found to be on record of the Tribunal, when the matter was taken up for consideration on 09.01.2020, it appears that a request for adjournment was made. The learned Tribunal, however, instead of adjourning the matter at the request of the proxy counsel for the appellants proceeded to hold that no assistance was being provided to the Court by the appellant and, therefore, simply dismissed the claim petition. In my considered view, while dealing with a claim petition filed by the dependents of the sole bread earner of the family, who had lost his life in the accident