The court emphasized the necessity of notifying claimants about proceedings, reinforcing the obligation to ensure fair hearings in claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.

1.The present First Appeals, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , are preferred by the appellants – original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 15.7.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharuch in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.462/2008, 463/2008 and 464/2008.

2.Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

3.The claim petitions have been dismissed by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the claimants did not remain present to produce evidence to establish the injuries sustained by them as well as physical impairment how turned into functional disablement and which way their earning capacity have been adversely affected. Since the claimants were not remaining present before the learned Tribunal, no option was left with the learned Tribunal, but to decide the claim petitions on its own merit and passed impugned common judgment and award by dismissing the claim petitions.

4.Section 168 of the MV Act bestowed the liability upon the MACT to assess just and fair compensation. The impugned judgment and award unfurled that the issues were framed on 22.2.2011 and the claim petitions were filed on 15.7.2017, which indicates that almost six years, the claimants did not remain present, they may have some reasons for not remaining present for all these years, but this time period has burdened the insurance company with paying unnecessary interest. From the Rojkam, it appears that the claim petitions were sine die for the year commending from 22.2.2011 till 16.5.2016. So, after framing the issue, the matters were sine die upto 16.5.2016 and it could be therefore, presumed that the claimants may not aware about listing of the claim petitions after it came out from the sine die position. This is the reason the claimants could not remain present before the learned Tribunal resulting into dismissal of the claim petitions. The Rojkam also indicates that no notice has been issued to the claimants after the matters have been taken out from the sine die position. Even, the claimants are not informed about framing of the issues. So, this is a fit case where one can held the claimants liable for not producing any evidence. The learned Tribunal was required to at least inform learned advocate appearing for the claimants to file evidence as issues are fixed.

5.Taking up the benevolent object of the MV Act and since the MACT is bestowed to assess, compute and grant just and fair compensation, I believed that this is a fit case to remand the claim petitions before the learned Tribunal to decide in accordance with law.

6.In wake of above reasons, present first appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and award are hereby quashed and set aside and Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.462/2008, 463/2008 and 464/2008 are restored to original proceedings before the MACT (Main), Bharuch.

7.Both the parties are directed to remain present before the learned Tribunal on 6.12.2024 for further proceeding of the claim petitions. Cooperation of both the parties are expected for early disposal of the claim petitions. The learned Tribunal is expected to decide the claim petitions within three months from the receipt of this order.

8.Needless to state that this Court has not entered into merits of the case and it is open for the learned Tribunal to decide all the contentions raised by both the parties before it in accordance with law.

9.R & P, if any, to be sent back to the concerned Court immediately.