JUDGMENT :

1. The present Appeal has been filed by the appellant for quashing and setting the judgment dated 29.11.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Banaskantha at Deesa in M.A.C.P. No.2394/2009 (Old No.43/2002).

2. Mr. Vishal C.Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant stated that the present appellant and his wife had filed M.A.C.P. Nos.43/2002 and 44/2002 on the same day, which was arising out of the same accident, which occurred on 08.06.2001 while both the applicants therein being the husband and wife were travelling from Nathwara to Dhanera in their car driven by the present appellant. Mr. Mehta submitted that when the car reached ahead of Ramnagar Chungi Naka, at that time one truck bearing Registration No.RJ-27-G-3427 came from the opposite side in a very high speed. The said truck was driven rashly and in negligent manner, as a result the truck dashed the vehicle of the appellant on the front side and owing to the accident both the applicants sustained injuries.

3. Mr. Mehta submitted that M.A.C.P. No.44/2002, which was thereafter registered as M.A.C.P. No.2033/2009, was decided by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxi.) at Deesa, Dist. Banaskantha on 13.03.2019 and the Tribunal was pleased to allow the claim petition of the wife and the compensation of Rs.77,108/- was granted laying liability on the owner and the insurer of the truck.

4. Mr. Mehta submitted that M.A.C.P. No.43/2002, thereafter registered as M.A.C.P. No.2394/2009, came to be dismissed by M.A.C.T. (Auxi.) on 29.11.2021, ordering the claimant therein, the present appellant to deposit Rs.50,000/- as exemplary cost to T.L.S.A. Deesa. Mr. Mehta submitted that the learned Tribunal appears to have dismissed the petition with bias mind and harbouring prejudice against the advocate who was ordered to pay Rs.25,000/- as exemplary cost to T.L.S.A., Deesa; with further direction that in default of payment by the applicant and his advocate, the T.L.S.A. Deesa to approach the Collector for compliance of the order. Mr. Mehta submitted that the very same Advocate appeared for the wife of the present appellant in M.A.C.P. No.2033/2009 (Old No.44/2002) and had conducted the trial, and on submission of the learned advocate, the Coordinate Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxi.) at Deesa, was pleased to grant the compensation to the wife of the appellant. Mr. Mehta submitted that the learned Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.2033/2009 (Old No.44/2002) was pleased to consider the issue of negligence and had found the driver of the truck sole negligent for the said accident. Thus, it was contended by Mr. Mehta that learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment was required to adopt the observations so made in M.A.C.P. No.2033/2009 and was to declare the issue so raised in the matter in accordance to the issue already decided. Advocate Mr. Mehta stated that the same Tribunal has dismissed many other cases of the same Advocate and the litigants had to suffer because of the prejudice of the Judge against the lawyer. Mr. Mehta further contended that reference was made to the Principal District Judge to transfer all the matters of the said Advocate to another Tribunal but request was declined.

5. Mr. Mehta further submitted that the very reason of approaching this Court is the observation made by the learned Tribunal against the appellant and the Advocate representing him, as the learned Judge instead of considering the matter on merits, had referred to irrelevant materials, which would disclose that the judgment is apparently erroneous, and is declared out of bias and prejudice.

6. Mr. Mehta submitted that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition essentially on two grounds stating that there is discrepancy in mentioning the make/type of vehicle, which was driven by the appellant, and discrepancy as regard to the total number of persons travelling in the said vehicle. Mr. Mehta further stated that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated that, t