Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Apr 17: High Court has set-aside the impugned award/judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) Shopian in so far as it fastens the liability on the appellant to pay compensation. Moreover, the High Court has remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for rehearing and deciding the same in accordance with the law within a period of three months after putting the parties to notice.
Finding several lacunas in the judgment/award of the Tribunal, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed, “the appellant is not the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident as such third party liability cannot be pinned down on him by any stretch of imagination”, adding “as per the record the appellant was never served notice in terms of the procedures as envisaged in the Civil Procedure Code, the award, as such, has been passed in ex-parte without providing him an opportunity of being heard”.
“The impugned notice has been served through Process Serving Agency. The report of the Process Serving Agency reveals that the appellant has not received the notice but the notice has been served to the family members of the appellant, as the appellant was not there”, High Court observed.
“No man should be condemned unheard or that both the sides must be heard before passing any order”, Justice Nargal said, adding “a man cannot incur the loss of property or liberty for an offence by a judicial proceedings until he has a fair opportunity of answering the case against him”.
High Court further said, “in many statutes, provisions are made ensuring that a notice is given to a person against whom an order is likely to be passed before a decision is made, but there may be instances where though an authority is vested with the powers to pass such orders which affect the liberty or property of an individual but the statute may not contain a provision for prior hearing. But what is important to be noted is that applicability of principles of natural justice is not dependent upon any statutory provision”.
In terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, on receipt of an application for compensation made under section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal, after giving notice of the application to the parties including the insurer and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, was required to hold an enquiry into the claim and pass an award, High Court said, adding “the law is settled at naught that when an award is passed at the back of a party and without affording him/her an opportunity of being heard, it is legally invalid”.
“It is settled that proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver is sine qua non for maintaining application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. The police had no doubt registered an FIR bearing No. 177/2015 under Section 279/338 RPC and other provisions of Motor Vehicles Act but whether the vehicle was being driven by respondent negligently and rashly has nowhere been established by the police report”, High Court said, adding “in absence of the same, the impugned award is legally invalid”.
With these observations, Justice Nargal set aside the impugned judgment/award dated 27th April 2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shopian, insofar as it fastens the liability on the appellant to pay compensation.
Accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for rehearing and deciding the same in accordance with law with in a period of three months. Moreover, Registrar Judicial has been directed remit the amount deposited by the appellant while filing the present appeal, before the Registry.
Follow our WhatsApp channel