Remanded

Smt. Champa Mahato v. Sri Deepak Chetry and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Sept 2019CRP/348/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's refusal to summon witnesses. The High Court held that the tribunal proceeded with a wrong approach. It set aside the impugned order and directed the tribunal to allow the claimant to adduce evidence and issue necessary summons.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.07.2016 is set aside. The tribunal is directed to allow the claimant to adduce evidence and issue summons to the witnesses if necessary.

Smt. Champa Mahato Vs Sri Deepak Chetry and 3 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010025652016

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : CRP 348/2016

¶5

1:SMT. CHAMPA MAHATO

¶6

W/O. LT. DEV MAHATO, R/O. BALUGADA, P.O., P.S. and DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:SRI DEEPAK CHETRY and 3 ORS. S/O. LT. BOL BAHADUR CHETRY, R/O. LAL GOLA CHANGLANG ROAD, P.O. AND P.S. MARGHERITA, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM.

¶9

4:PATKAI TEA GREEN C/O. MR. D.B. SOSAR MISSION ROAD MARGHERITA P.O. and P.S. MARGHERITA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM.

¶10

5:THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT PRAMOD MARKET RANGAGORA ROAD TINSUKIA.

¶11

6:THE NATIONAL INS. CO. LTD. HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT OPPOSITE A.S.T.C. BUS STAND A.T. ROAD P.O. P.S. and DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A K GUPTA

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S DUTTAR

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 17-09-2019

¶18

Heard Mr. AK Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶19

The challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 22.07.2016, passed by learned MACT, Tinsukia in MAC Case No.94/2013, whereby, the learned MACT rejected the prayer of the petitioner for issuing summons to two of the witnesses, namely, the employer of the deceased as well as the police officer who submitted the charge-sheet.

¶20

The petitioner as claimant, filed an application before the tribunal seeking compensation for the death of her husband in a vehicular accident. In the said proceeding, after examination of the claimant, the petitioner herein, applied before the tribunal for issuing summons to the aforementioned two witnesses, which was rejected by the learned tribunal by the impugned order, holding that allowing the petition would amount to filling up the lacunae in the case of the claimant.

¶21

The proceeding before the MACT by its very nature is not an adversarial litigation, rather, it is an enquiry contemplated under section 168 of the MV Act, to be conducted by the tribunal in order to ascertain just and reasonable compensation and as such, the statute in fact cast a duty on the tribunal to hold the enquiry in order to give a just compensation. Therefore, there cannot be any question of filling up loopholes in the claimant’s case. Tribunal ought to have considered the petition for calling any witness in the perspective of whether examination of such witness is necessary to ascertain the just and reasonable compensation. What is apparent is that the learned tribunal totally misdirected itself and proceeded with wrong approach, while rejecting the petition of the claimant and thereby committed a jurisdictional error.

¶22

However, learned counsel for the respondent has fairly conceded that opportunity ought to have been given to the petitioner to examine the witnesses.

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

In view of the above, the impugned order dated 22.07.2016 is hereby set-aside. The tribunal shall allow the claimant to adduce evidence and if necessary, issue summons to the witness/witnesses.

¶25

The petition stands disposed of.

¶26

J U D G E

¶27

Smita

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Smt. Champa Mahato v. Sri Deepak Chetry and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Champa Mahato v. Sri Deepak Chetry and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Kumar Kalita Vs the State of Assam

Arvind Nahata Vs the State of Assam

Sri Manoranjan Baishya Vs Sri Dhan Nath

Budha Chandra Singha Vs Dhaneshwar Singha

Roham Ali Vs the State of Assam

Sofior Rahman Vs the State of Assam