IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.11.2008 CORAM:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No. 669 of 1999 and C.M.P.No. 8284 of 1999 .......... M.Mustafa .. Appellant/claimant Vs. 1.P. Murugesh 2.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office Nehru Street, Kumaran Road, Tiruppur-1 . .. Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the order and decretal order dated 12.2.1997 made in MCOP No. 423 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub Court), Salem. For Appellant : M/s. Mythily Suresh For Respondents: No Appearance – R1 Mr. K.S. Narasimhan – R2 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dismissing the claim, the appellant/claimant has filed this appeal. 2. On 26.5.1996 at 5.30 a.m., the appellant/claimant's car bearing registration No.CNW – 4920 was proceeding to Tanjavur. On the way, the vehicle was stopped and parked on the side of the road. The said vehicle was hit by a tempo van insured with the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent. In that accident, according to the appellant/ claimant, the ambassador Car was damaged. Therefore, the claimant made a claim for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the damage caused to the vehicle. 3. Before the Tribunal, the owner was examined as P.W.1 and the driver was examined as P.W.2. Documents Exs. A1 and A2 were marked. 38 bills have been filed to show the nature of repair done to the vehicle. Ex.A2 series are the bills for payment to the mechanic. The respondents were noticed by the Tribunal, however, they remained exparte before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition for the following reasons. Though a claim for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is made by the claimant, there is no document to show that an accident happened. It held that the claim is not proved by relevant documents like F.I.R., Charge Sheet and M.V.I. Report. Since the claimant has not proved the accident and the person responsible for the accident based on which, the claim is made, the Tribunal rejected the same. In the absence of acceptable evidence, the claim was dismissed against which, the present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed an applicationin CMP No. 8284 of 1999 for receiving additional documents in support of the claim. The document sought to be marked are (i) F.I.R., (2) M.V.Inspection report (3) charge sheet. Notice sent through Court was served on the respondents on 13.10.2006. However, there is no appearance on behalf of the first respondent, the owner of the tempo van. Mr.K.S. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the second respondent insurance company appeared and stated that the case was rightly dismissed on the ground that no relevant documents were filed. Since the claim was not adjudicated on merits, this Court may remand the matter for fresh trial by allowing the appellant to produce the necessary oral and documentary evidence to contest the claim and with liberty to the respondents to contest the same on merits. 5. The Tribunal has in this case, for want of relevant documents, refused to entertain the claim for compensation and dismissed the same. The claimant/ appellant has now filed the petition to receive additional documents. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition to receive additional documents, it is stated that the respondents were served but remained absent and hence the appellant did not file the relevant documents on the premise that the case is not contested. The documents now produced before this Court were available then itself and by oversight, it was not marked. Prejudice is pleaded. The dismissal is because of non production of the relevant documents available. The claimant has committed a mistake in not marking the documents like F.I.R., charge sheet and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ M.V. Inspection report on a wrong assumption that respondents have not disputed the claim in spite of being noticed. 6. In this case, the appellant has produced the documents before this Court and has taken out an application along with the appeal in the year 1999 itself for marking the documents. The documents have to be tested by letting in evidence with liberty to the otherside to contest the same on merits. The plea of the appellant that prejudice is caused as the claim is rejected at the threshold without an opportunity to let in further evidence both oral and documentary, has to be considered in view of the summary nature of the proceedings in adjudication. 7. In such view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal is set aside. The civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed by way of remand. The documents furnished before this Court in CMP No. 8284 of 1999 are directed to be returned to the appellant by substituting photocopies of the originals and the Court below is directed to take up the case on remand by giving opportunity to both sides to adduce oral and documentary evidence and dispose the same on merits within a reasonable time. The appeal and CMP No. 8284 of 1999 is ordered accordingly. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra To 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional Sub Court), Salem. (with records) 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. +1cc to Mr.K.S.Narasimhan, Advocate Sr 64922 KA (CO) km/23.1. CMA No. 669 of 1999 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/