Point of Law: Motor Accident Claim – Compensation modified - Tribunal may release the money with certain stipulations and that guidelines have to be followed but not rigidly followed as precedents.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Abhishek, learned counsel for appellants and Shri Nishant Mehrotra appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. None appears for the owner of the vehicle. We had partly allowed the appeal but had kept reasons to be penned later on as the Courts were closing for the Holi Vacations. We now Penn our reasons for allowing the appeal, filed at the behest of claimants who have been put to great injustice by the orders of the ld officers manning the Tribunals, from 2010, while losing sight of the beneficial provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').

2. After the judgment was dictated we directed the office to upload the same on 14.4.2021. But immediately after directing the judgment to upload, we thought of again going through the judgment for our satisfaction when we read the judgment, unfortunately, while going through the manuscript, we found that there were certain repetitions, the paraphrasing was not proper and therefore, we directed the office not to issue the certified copy and delete the same on 14.4.2021 itself and we have corrected the manuscript again without changing the final result. This was necessary so as to maintain a better chronology and make it a more comprehensive and readable judgment. We can say that these changes were necessary to make it a more readable judgment interpreting the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 herein after referred as C.P.C. and for directing the Tribunals, on the course which they should adopt in such cases.

THE CHANGES CAN BE SAID TO BE MORE OF STYLE IN WRITING SO THIS MENTION AS SOME MIGHT HAVE DOWNLOADED AND READ THE JUDGMENT UPLOADED

3. This appeal, at the behest of the claimant (now deceased) through his legal representatives, challenges the judgment and decree dated 4.5.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in M.A.C.P. No. 516 of 2005 (Deceased Satish Chand Sharma and others Vs. Manoj and another. The appeal is preferred for enhancement of the compensation awarded under the impugned award and that with a prayer that this Court be pleased to allow the claim petition in toto by exercising powers under section 173 of the Act..

4. Recently the Apex Court in Sudarsan Puhan Vs.Jayanta Ku. Mohanty and another etc., reported in AIR 2018 SC 4662, reiterated the observations made in the case of UPSRTC Vs. Km. Mamta and others, reported in AIR 2016 SCC 948, directing that as appeal is continuation of the earlier proceedings, High Court is under legal obligation to decide all the issues raised and decide the lis and decide appeal by giving reasons.

5. Essential facts and chronology of events giving rise to the instant dispute are noted at the outset. We feel it necessary to narrate the chronology of events which would show that the Tribunal has committed illegality in passing the impugned award which requires to be readdressed by this Court in favour of the claimants who represent the estate of the injured who died subsequent to the passing of award and decree in in his favour in the year 2010. The accident occurred on 22.2.2005. The claimant was admitted in hospital from the date of accident and, thereafter was discharged. The claimant filed claim petition on 14.9.2005 after being discharged from hospital. On petition being filed, summons were issued to respondents. Though disputed by owner, the respondent No.1-owner was served with the summons on 13.1.2007 as mentioned by the Tribunal in its judgment dated 27.9.2010. The matter proceeded ex parte against the owner namely Manoj Kumar. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not appear before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company sought adjournment till 2008 and did not file their reply. The reply one of denial was filed in the year 2009. The evidences were recorded from 2009 to 2010. On 08.07.2010 the Insurance Company was permitted to contest the petit