The Motor Vehicles Act is designed to provide solace to victims of motor accidents, relieving them from strict compliance with legal procedures and placing the onus on the Tribunal to award just compensation.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 12.12.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the `Impugned Award') passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Pilot Court), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') in MACT Case No.14887/2015, titled Sh. Suresh Chand Sharma (through LR's) v. Raju & Anr..

2. In the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal accepted the plea of the claimants that late Sh.Suresh Chand Sharma had sustained grievous injuries in the accident which occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.DL5 SBK 5277, being driven by its driver, that is, respondent no.1 herein. However, on the issue of the award of compensation to the claimants, the learned Tribunal held that the claimants/appellants did not take appropriate steps to summon the doctor to prove the disability certificate, and in the absence of such proof, the disability certificate of the injured cannot be relied upon. It was further held that as the late Sh.Suresh Chand Sharma expired during the proceedings of the Claim Petition, the claimants are not entitled to compensation on the head of loss of income, loss of amenities of life, as well as the damages towards pain and suffering and other non-pecuniary heads.

3. Aggrieved of the abovementioned findings of the learned Tribunal, the claimants have filed the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the claimants submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the respondent no.2 itself has examined Dr. Arun Aggarwal as R2W1. He has proved on record his own Opinion Report dated 10.07.2018 as Ex.R2W1/1, which inter-alia opined as under:

"OPINION:

Injuries of Suresh Chand Sharma had sustained on 28/10/2013 are grievous. And death was due to septicemia and shock after sustaining antemartem injuries in a road accident."

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that, therefore, it was the witness of the respondent no.2 who stated that the late Sh.Suresh Chand Sharma died due to the injuries suffered in the accident in question. The learned Tribunal has, therefore, completely erred in placing an additional burden on the appellant to prove the disability certificate, and in the absence of such proof, restricting the claim.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that the onus of proving the claim is on the claimant. He submits that as the claimants have failed to prove the disability certificate of the injured, the learned Tribunal had no option but to restrict the claim of the appellants.

7. I am unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2. The learned Tribunal, in terms of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'), is to hold an `inquiry' into the accident and then award a just compensation to the claimants. While the claim amount cannot be a bounty, it has to be a reasonable compensation for the loss of life or the injury suffered due to the accident. The learned Tribunal is not bound by the technicalities of procedure nor can place a burden of proof as applicable to a criminal trial, on the claimants.

8. In Vimla Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2019)2 SCC 186, the Supreme Court had reemphasized the object of the Act, as under:

"15. At the outset, we may reiterate as has been consistently said by this Court in a series of cases that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to give solace to the victims of the motor accident who suffer bodily injury or die untimely. The Act is designed in a manner, which relieves the victims from ensuring strict compliance provided in law, which are otherwise applicable to the suits and other proceedings while prosecuting the claim petition filed under the Act for claiming compensation for the loss sustained by them in the accident."

9. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Ha