The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of conducting thorough inquiries, calling for necessary documents, and ensuring just compensation to the claimants as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the directions given in the case of Jay Prakash vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2019 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara in M.A.C.P. No. 1681 of 2009, which was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1998 (herein after referred to as the “Act”). The said claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal.

2. Mr. Bhalodi, learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error by dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the involvement of the vehicle Jeep bearing registration No. GJ-6-AH-2205 is doubtful.

2.1 Learned advocate for the appellants submits that the Trial Court ought to have considered the provisions under Section 169 of the Act for holing an inquiry upon the police report received by the Tribunal under Section 158(6) of the Act and should have proceeded to allow the compensation to the victim or the legal heirs of the victim.

2.2 Learned advocate for the appellants submits that the Tribunal failed to exercise the power vested upon it and from the findings it becomes apparent that no efforts have been made by the Tribunal to ensure that the legal heirs of the victim receive compensation after making legitimate inquiry regarding the involvement of the vehicle.

2.3 Learned advocate for the appellants has replied upon the judgment of Apex Court in case of Jay Prakash vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2010) 2 SCC 607 to submit that the Tribunal ought to have called for Form-54 along with the all the police investigation papers, as per Form 54 in accordance to Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, as per Section 166(4) of the Act should have confirmed the fact. It is submitted that after thorough investigation, the police has filed charge-sheet against the driver of vehicle Jeep bearing registration no. GJ-6-AH-2205.

2.4 Learned advocate for the appellants also submitted that the claim petition was filed in the Year-2009 and it was dismissed in the Year-2019 and during that period, the Tribunal had enough and sufficient time to hold inquiry and call for police report, as provided under the Act, where the Tribunal ought to have been mindful of the fact that it would not have been possible for the legal heirs of the victims in all the cases to procure the necessary documents, which are within the custody of police authority hence, the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the provisions under Section 166(4) and 169 of the Act, where special powers are granted to the Tribunal. It is submitted that Tribunal should have granted compensation to the legal heirs of the victim as per Schedule-II of the Act.

3. The observations of the Tribunal in the MACP No. 1681 of 2009 decided on 28.11.2019 does not require the hearing from the side of opponents, as this Court is of the opinion at the admission stage that the matter is required to be remanded back to the concerned Tribunal.

4. The Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition made the observations that the applicant examined at Exh.17 has admitted that she has no personal knowledge about the accident and in Exh.21 FIR is against the unknown Jeep driver, the complaint does not disclose registration number nor the description or the color of the vehicle and no evidence has come on record whether there has been charge-sheet against Exh.21 FIR, and the complainant, who was owner of the rickshaw, has stated was sitting along with the deceased in the rickshaw, but no evidence has been produced to that regard nor the statement before the police of the complainant has been produced. The Tribunal also went on to observe that the owner and driver, opponent nos. 1 and 2 were served inspite of that, they have remained absent and the applicants have not examined them, and therefore, the involvement of Jeep bearing registration no. GJ-6-AH-2205 does not get disclose and in the panchnama no facts of involved vehicle could be culled out.

5. In case of Jay Prakash (supra), the Apex Court had shown concern about 4 (fo