The court emphasized the need to interpret the provisions of social welfare legislation liberally to fulfill the policy of the legislation and to decide cases on merits to provide substantial justice.

ORDER :

1. The challenge is given to the claim petition, which came to be dismissed on 02.09.2023 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Surat in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 394 of 2011.

2. Advocate Mr. Matafer R. Pande for the appellant submitted that the matter was registered in 2011. The matter was pending in another Tribunal, thereafter the matter was transferred to the Tribunal which has dismissed the petition.

2.1 Advocate Mr. Pande submitted that while dismissing the petition, it was observed that during the pendency of the matter, the applicant was not present. The legal heirs of original applicant has produced an application at Exh.33 declaring the death. The death certificate and Adhar Card was produced along with the application with a prayer to join them as legal heirs.

2.2 Advocate Mr. Pande submitted that the Court had joined heirs as a party and the claimant had prepared to produce the evidence on record; however, on 06.02.2023, by order below Exh.1, the right of the evidence came to be closed, and, thus the learned Tribunal has observed that the legal heirs of the original applicant had failed to prove the vehicular accident, and without entering into the merits of the case had decided the issue nos. 1 and 2 in negative, and answering the issue no. 3 dismissed the petition.

2.3 Advocate Mr. Pande referred to the judgment of Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary and Others vs. Malek Rafik Malek Himmatbhai, 2011 (2) GLR 1324, to submit that no claim petition ought to have been dismissed without decision on merits. Mr. Pande further stated that the application moved by the legal heirs itself suggests that they were willing to proceed with the matter to produce the evidence on record.

2.4 Advocate Mr. Pande further stated that if the Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not come forward to produce evidence, then as laid down in the case of Jai Prakash vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2010) 2 SCC 607, could have called for the information under Form-54 and should have decided the matter on merits, or rather for giving an opportunity should have closed the stage of the petitioner, and should have posted it for the stage of the opponents for producing the evidence, which would have given enough time and opportunity for the petitioner to move an application for reopening the stage of leading evidence.

3. In the judgment of Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai Chaudhary (supra), it has been held that the learned Tribunal has no power to dismiss the Claim Petition without taking into consideration the object behind the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, i.e. to provide adequate compensation to the claimants. The relevant part of the above decision is reproduced herein-below:

A District Judge, who functions as a Claims Tribunal, is not only within the administrative control of the High Court, but also subordinate to it under Section 115 of the Code. A Claims Tribunal is a ‘Court’ although with limited jurisdiction and not a mere ‘Tribunal’. The powers of appeal given to the High Court under the Act against the decision of the Tribunal constituted under the Act, will definitely lead to conclusion that the said Tribunal is subordinate to the High Court and the nomenclature given to the Motor Vehicles Tribunal that, it is a Tribunal, will not take it out of the purview of the Civil Court. (Para 5)

Under Rule 3, therefore, even if, neither party appears when the suit is called for hearing, it is not compulsory for the Court to dismiss the suit. The Court may adjourn the suit. In the event of dismissal of the suit, it is open to the plaintiff to apply for restoration of the suit and the Court may set aside the order of dismissal and restore the suit. An order dismissing a suit for default of appearance of parties is not a “decree” under Section 2(2) and hence, is not appealable. An order of dismissal of a suit based on erroneous application of Rule 3 can be said to be a “case decided” within the meaning of Sec. 115 of the Co