1. This is an appeal, filed by the claimants, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award, dated 11.4.2005, passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narsinghgarh in Claim Case No. 128 of 2004. By impugned award, the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition essentially on the ground that claimants failed to adduce any evidence in support of their claim petition.

It is this award, which has given rise to filing of present appeal by the claimants. So, the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether learned Member of the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition of the appellants.

2. Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. None appeared for and on behalf of others.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, we are inclimed to allow this appeal and while setting aside of the impugned award, remand the case to the Claims Tribunal for deciding the same on merits.

4. The impugned award, dated 11.4.2005, reads as under:

^^vkosnd }kjk Jh v{k;] ,MoksdsV

vukosnd dz- 1 }kjk Jh lDlsuk] ,MoksdsV

vukosnd dz- 2 }kjk Jh iadt xqIrk] ,MoksdsV

vukosnd dz- 3 }kjk Jh 'kjn] ,MokdsV

,d vkosnu&i= varxZr vkns"k 11 fu;e 14 lh-ih-lh- dk izLrqr fd;kA

udy foi{k dks nh xbZA

vuk- dz- 3 vius vkosnu es nf'kZr dkj.k mfpr ugha gS og vius dk;kZy; ds vfHkys[k ls ns[kdj tokc nkos esa Li"V Lohdkj ;k vLohdkj dj ldrs gSa vuko";d foyac dkfjr djus ds fy, vkosnu is"k fd;k gS vr% vkosnu i= varxZr vkns"k 11 fu;e 14 lh-ih-lh- fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA

vkosnd lk{; mifLFkr ughaA vkosnd ,oa mldh lk{; dh vuqifLFkfr dk dksbZ dkj.k Hkh vfHkys[k ij ugha gSA vr% lk{; ds vHkko esa izdj.k fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA

O;; rkfydk rS;kj dh tk,A

^^Ikzdj.k dk ifj.kke vadu Ik'pkr~ fu;r vof/k esa izdj.k vfHkys[kkxkj esa tek fd;k tk,A**

5. While deciding the issue arising in this case, we can never ignore the subtle observations of the Supreme Court made in one of the coveted decision reported in AIR 1955 SC 425 (Sang ram Singh v. Election Tribunal), wherein Hon'ble Vivian Bose -- the learned Judge, speaking for the Bench made following memorable observations in his imitable style of writing. How eloquent and far reaching these observations are:

"A Code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is procedure something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leave no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to both sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it. Our Laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, the decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them Of course, there must be exceptions and where they are clearly defined they must be given effect to. But taken by and large, and subject to that proviso, our laws of procedure should be construed, wherever that is reasonably possible, in the light of that principle."

6. It is these observations of Supreme Court which must always be kept in mind by the Courts/Tribunals while deciding the rights of the parties and the issues of the nature which is subject matter of this case.

7. It is a death case. One Narendra Kumar Patidar died in a vehicular accident. His legal representatives filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for his death. It is this claim petition, which came to be dismissed for want of evidence by