IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. FAO No.11 of 2005 Date of Decision : December 23, 2008 Shanti Devi & Anr. …Appellants. Versus: National Insurance Co. Ltd., & Anr. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellants : Mr. G. D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B. C. Verma, Advocate For the respondents: None Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The claimants have assailed the impugned award dated 28.7.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Shimla, H. P., in M.A.C. Petition No.8-S/2 of 1999 titled as Shanti Devi & Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., & Anr. for the reasons that the Tribunal dismissed their claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Shri Jai Mangal, aged 25 years was travelling in vehicle (Jeep) No.HP-09-0061, which was owned by the Himachal Harijan Kalyan Sanstha, Theog, respondent No.2 and insured by the National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No.1. The vehicle being driven by Shri Yash Pal met with an accident 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 on 20.5.1998 and rolled down the ‘Khud’ at Mayee-Pul in Tehsil Theog, Distt. Shimla. In the said accident, four persons died including Shri Jai Mangal and the driver. The claimants being the legal heirs and dependent filed a claim petition, claiming compensation of Rs.5 lacs. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1) Whether Jai Mangal died in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of Mahindra Jeep (No.HP-09-0061) by deceased Yash Pal on May 20, 1998? ….OPP 2) If issue No.1 is held in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled and from whom? …….OPP 3) Whether the ill-fated vehicle (No.HP-09-0061) was not insured with respondent No.1 and in case it was insured, whether the same was being driven by a person not holding a valid driving licence? …..OPR 1 & 2. The Tribunal found that the driver Yash Pal had been negligent in driving the vehicle which caused the accident in which deceased Jai Mangal died. However, since the claimants could not lead any evidence with regard to the income, therefore, the claim petition was dismissed. The Tribunal also found that the vehicle was insured and that the driver was having a valid and effective driving licence (Ext.RW-1/C). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Mr. G. D. Verma, learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that the claimants are poor residents of Bihar 3 and could not lead any evidence as not only they were not aware of the procedure of the Court but, however, had no money to travel to Shimla to depose in their favour. It is true that various opportunities were granted by the Court below to the claimants to lead their evidence but, however, it is equally true that on 5.12.2001, the claimants represented that the matter be listed before the Lok Adalat for reconciliation. On 29.12.2001, the conciliation between the parties could not take place as the Insurance Company pleaded that the licence is fake. Accordingly, the matter was withdrawn from the Lok Adalat and listed for the claimants evidence on 26.4.2002. The claimants have deposed in the grounds of appeal that they are poor persons. Their successor-in-interest had come to Himachal and had died in a road accident. The claimants could not prove their case for the reasons totally beyond their control as they had no money to travel from Bihar. Record evidences that even the statutory payment of no fault liability was not paid to them. They were talking on some settlement by way of reconciliation which was unfortunately turned down by the insurer. If the claimants are not permitted to lead evidence in support of their claim petition, it would result into travesty of justice. They would be deprived of their legitimate right and claim for the reasons totally beyond their control. 4 Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it would only be in the interest of justice and the parties that the findings of the Tribunal are set-aside and the matter is remanded back for trial afresh. I have also considered the fact that the respondents only produced a photo copy of the licence which was exhibited and findings returned thereupon. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 3rd March, 2009. The record be sent back immediately. Mr. Verma, undertakes to produce the entire evidence at the risk, cost and responsibility of the claimants. It is clarified that not more than two opportunities shall be granted to the claimants for leading their entire evidence. It shall also be open for the respondents to lead such additional evidence as they may feel necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. Considering the financial hardship of the claimants, the Tribunal shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. The question of interim payment, in accordance with law shall also be considered by the Tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal is allowed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. December 23, 2008. (rana)