The court emphasized the need for a fair opportunity to present evidence in compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, rejecting technicalities that obstruct justice.

The appellant/claimant has filed this Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved with the award dated 20th October, 2022 passed by Seventh MACT, Sagar in MACC No.335/2020 by which the learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim of the appellant/claimant on the ground that the appellant/claimant has failed to prove the alleged accident caused by the offending vehicle.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13/12/2019 at about 10:30 A.M. when appellant/claimant was waiting for her colleague at Parkota, Sagar, at that time respondent No.1/non-applicant No.1 who was coming from Namak Mandi was driving the vehicle bearing registration No.MP-20- CE-4758 rashly and negligently dashed the appellant/claimant, due to which she sustained fracture in her left leg. Thereafter, appellant preferred a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.19,69,000/- (Nineteen lakhs sixty nine thousand) on account of injuries sustained by her in the alleged incident.

3. Learned Tribunal summoned the respondent No.1/non-applicant No.1 and respondent No.2/insurance company. Respondent No.1 filed written statement and denied the averments mentioned in the claim petition. However, it was stated that on the date of incident the respondent No.1 had valid and effective license to drive the offending vehicle, which was insured with respondent No.2/non-applicant No.2, therefore, if any amount of compensation is awarded, then it is respondent No.2/insurance company who is liable to pay the amount of compensation.

4. Respondent No.2/Insurance company also filed written statement stating that the FIR of the alleged incident was filed with a delay of more than one month. The registration number of offending vehicle was also not informed to District Hospital, Sagar and other hospitals where claimant remained hospitalized. Similarly, no documents pertaining to information given to the District hospital or from hospital to Police, has been filed by the claimant. The claimant has filed this claim petition in collusion with non-applicant No.1 to get the amount of compensation. It was also alleged that on the date of incident respondent No.1 was not possessing valid and effective license to drive the offending vehicle, so the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the policy, hence, respondent No.2/insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and prays for dismissal of the claim petition against the insurance company.

5. Learned Claim Tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence. After considering the evidence placed on the record and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellant/claimant has failed to prove the alleged accident caused by the offending vehicle. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, appellant has filed this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned tribunal has rejected the claim petition filed by the appellant solely on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove that the alleged incident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

Because the eye-witness of the alleged incident could not be examined before the Tribunal which ultimately persuaded the tribunal to come to a wrong conclusion that the appellant/claimant could not prove her case. It is also submitted that due to mistake of counsel engaged by the appellant before the tribunal, eye-witness of alleged incident could not be examined before the tribunal, therefore, for the fault of her counsel, appellant should not suffer. Under these circumstance, learned counsel for the appellant prays that the matter be remanded back to the concerned tribunal with a direction to decide the matter afresh on merits after affording opportunity to the appellant to examine the eye-witnesses of the alleged incident in support o