Procedural law should facilitate justice; strict adherence to process must not obstruct substantive rights.

Order on Board

15 . 09.2025

1) Heard on I.A. No. 01, applications under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

2) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is 19 days delay in MAC No. 766 of 2024 and 29 days delay in other appeals. He would pray to condone the delay.

3) On due consideration, applications for condonation of delay are hereby allowed. The delay caused in filing these appeal are hereby condoned.

4) Heard on admission.

5) The appellants/claimants have filed these appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the orders passed by learned 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba in following claim cases :-

6) Mr. Kesharwani would submit that the claim cases filed by the appellants/claimants were dismissed by the learned Claims Tribunal only on the ground that the appellants failed to provide relevant documents which were placed on record, to the Insurance company, Driver and Owner.

7) Mr. Anil Gulati and Mr. Shyamta Prasad Sannat, Advocates appearing for respondents would oppose. They would submit that despite repeated opportunities, the appellants failed to supply relevant documents to the opposing party, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim cases.

8) Heard.

9) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sangram Singh Versus Election Tribunal, Kotah reported in AIR 1955 SC 425 held that “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 leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against.”

10) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sushil Kumar Sen Versus State of Bihar reported in 1975 (1) SCC 774 has held that “morality of justice at the hands of law troubles a judge’s conscience and points an angry interrogation at the law reformer. The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in judges to act ex debito justitiae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable.”

11)The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab Versus Shamlal Murari reported in 1976 (1) SCC 719 held that “processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice.”

12)Taking into consideration the facts of these cases, reasons assigned by the learned Tribunal and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the orders passed by the learned Tribunal dated 04.12.2023 of all four claim cases are hereby set-aside.

13)Accordingly, these petitions are hereby allowed. These matters are remitted back to the concerned Tribunal to decide the cases on merits.