1994 (8) TMI 307 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Dismissal of compensation petitions by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
- Allegations of negligence against bus driver
- Failure of petitioners to offer themselves for cross-examination
- Applicability of summary procedure under Rule 311 of Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules
- Right to cross-examine in summary procedure cases
- Tribunal's dismissal of petitioners' claim for compensation

Analysis:
The judgment involves a group of applications where the petitioners sought compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal following an accident involving a bus and a Matador. The Tribunal dismissed the petitions despite finding the bus driver negligent, leading to the petitioners appealing against the decision. The Tribunal had ordered the petitioners to offer themselves for cross-examination, but they failed to do so, leading to the dismissal of their claims. The petitioners argued that the Tribunal should have considered their affidavits as evidence, citing a Division Bench decision allowing claims to be decided on affidavits when the amount claimed is below a certain threshold.

The learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the applications based on the petitioners' failure to appear for cross-examination. He argued that the Tribunal should have accepted the affidavits as evidence, as per the summary procedure under Rule 311 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules. However, the Tribunal had ordered cross-examination due to doubts raised by the respondents about the petitioners' claims. The judgment cited a previous decision emphasizing the right to cross-examine in cases where the genuineness of claims is in question, even in summary procedures. The petitioners' repeated failure to comply with the Tribunal's orders for cross-examination led to the dismissal of their claims.

The judgment highlighted that the petitioners' failure to prove their injuries, treatment, and expenses incurred justified the Tribunal's decision to dismiss their claims. Despite opportunities granted for cross-examination, the petitioners did not cooperate, leading to a lack of evidence to support their case. The Tribunal's decision was deemed appropriate given the petitioners' non-compliance and inability to substantiate their claims adequately. The Court rejected the petitioners' arguments for interference, upholding the Tribunal's dismissal of their compensation petitions.