IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of following the legal provisions related to the production of documents in motor accident claim petitions and providing sufficient opportunity to the parties to present their case.

ORDER :

1. Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the MACP came to be dismissed citing the provision of Rule 211 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 observing that the petition was admitted on 30.7.2009 and that MLC certificate has not been produced and when the matter was called out, the applicant as well as the advocate failed to remain present and hence, observing so, the petition was dismissed by the learned 5th Additional MACT (Aux), Godhra in MACP No. 1086/09. The stage for considering the provision of Rule 211 would be at the institution of the claim petition and in absence of any medical certificate of injuries, the claim petition came to be admitted in the file and numbered in the register, then after a long delay, the dismissal ought not to have been under Rule 211 which in this case the dismissal order is of 10.11.2017 almost after 8 years. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the case was of motor accident and certainly the criminal case would have been registered against the driver and thus, stated that the MLC certificate could have been procured under Form 54 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which could have given the information regarding the hospital in which the injured was admitted and necessary MLC report could have been called for. Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the Tribunal was required to grant an opportunity to the claimant by framing the issues and then could have asked for production of the MLC where in the present matter, Mr. Bhalodi submitted that the Tribunal had not even framed any issue for the trial. The Tribunal was required to follow the provision of Section 158(6) of the MV Act.

2. Mr. Bhalodi further stated that the restoration application was filed which was with a delay of 1907 days but the delay condonation application being MACMA No. 322 of 2023 was dismissed.

3. Perusal of the order dated 10.11.2017 does not clarify as to when the issues were framed by the Tribunal. It was only on transfer, the matter had come before the concerned Tribunal and on the ground of non-production of MLC certificate, the claim petition was dismissed. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 211 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicle Rules grants opportunity to the applicant to satisfy the claims Tribunal about the good or sufficient cause which prevented him from filing such documents and if the claims Tribunal finds it satisfactory, then the Tribunal can allow the claimant to rely upon such document thereafter in support of his claim petition.

4. Here in this case, the matter was admitted in the year 2009. Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 211 requires reproduction herein to note as to what are the documents which would be necessary to be appended at the time of institution of application for compensation under sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the MV Act.

5. Sub-Rule (5) is reproduced hereunder:

“(5) There shall be appended to every such application, the following documents namely:

(i) First Information Report in respect of the accident.

(ii) Medical certificate of injuries or Postmortem Report, or death certificate.

(iii) a certificate regarding ownership and insurance particulars of vehicle involved in the accident from the Regional Transport Officer or the Police Station, concerned.”

6. At the time of institution of the claim petition, the Tribunal through the registry would have verified about the documents appended along with the claim petition. If without any objection, the claim petition was admitted, then it could be assumed that the Tribunal has permitted him to rely upon such document later on during the trial. Here in this case, the Tribunal by passing the order of dismissal on 10.11.2017 had been in haste of disposing the matter which had been pending for almost more than 8 years. The Tribunal was required to appreciate the fact that when the petition came to be admitted, no such objections were raised regarding the MLC certificate and later on after 8 years, the dismissal of the petition has been ordered without any