SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioners (claimants) have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 4.10.2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal) ' dismissing the application of the petitioners for producing additional evidence.
(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, on account of the death of Rati Ram, which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide Award dated 22.4.2005, while holding that the petitioners failed to prove that the accident in question did occur due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 Sat Pal, driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Jeep bearing registration No. HR -30A -8963. While dismissing the claim petition, the Tribunal did not assess the amount of compensation on issue No. 2, as the claim petition was dismissed on the aforesaid issue No. 1 regarding negligence. On appeal by the petitioners, the Award dated 22.4.2005, passed by the Tribunal, was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to decide the case afresh and to record findings on issue No. 2 with regard to the quantum of compensation. After remand, when the matter was pending before the Tribunal, the petitioners -claimants moved an application for leading additional evidence to prove the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The said application has been dismissed on the ground that since this Court has remanded the matter only to record the finding on issue No. 2 therefore, no fresh evidence can be permitted to be adduced by the claimants with regard to issue No. 1 at this stage. Against that order, this petition has been filed.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that once the Award, passed by the Tribunal, was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded to decide the claim petition afresh, then the Tribunal is to decide the claim petition afresh and to record fresh findings on all the issues. He further submits that if, it was not the intention of this Court to decide all the issues afresh, then there was no need to set aside the impugned Award and remand the matter. If it would have been the intention of this Court to affirm the findings on issue No. 1, then in that eventuality, the claim petition would have been dismissed. Therefore, while remanding the matter after setting aside the Award passed by the Tribunal, the intention of this Court was that the Tribunal should decide the matter afresh on the basis of evidence available on record. In that situation, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be allowed to lead evidence to prove that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of Sat Pal -respondent No. 1, driver of the offending vehicle.;