KESHOTE, J. - (1.) HAVING gone through the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur I am satisfied that respondent No. 2 is only the contesting party.
(2.) ADMIT. Respondent No. 2 is represented by the Advocate. The matter is complete. The matter is taken up for hearing. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The challenge has been made by the petitioner by this petition u/art. 227 of the Constitution to the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur dated 16. 9. 2000 (Annexure-3 ). The facts of the case are that petitioner filed claim petition along with his daughter Pinky against respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4 who are the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle which was involved in the accident. The petitioners stated in their claim petition that when they are travelling in the offending bus the driver of it was driving the same rashly and negligently and as a result of which near village Soha the bus was met with an accident in which petitioners and his daughter Pinky sustained grievous injuries. During the pendency of this claim petition, the daughter of the petitioner-Kumari Pinky, one of the claimants died on 7. 12. 1999 as a result of the injuries sustained by her in the accident. The petitioners filed an application u/o. 23 R. 3 CPC. The copy of this application is there on record of this petition as Annexure-2. In this application the prayer has been made that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the claim application of deceased-Kumari Pinky and to grant the permission to them to file fresh claim petition for the compensation due to her death. This application was came to be decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the impugned order. This application was opposed only by the counsel for the United India Insurance Company Ltd. It is submitted before the Tribunal by the learned counsel who appeared for the Company that he has no objection to the extend prayer made by the petitioner in the application for withdrawal of the same to the extent it relates to claim of deceased-Pinky. However, so far second prayer is made, the objection is raised by the Company's counsel that the petitioners have not produced any evidence to show and establish that the death of Pinky was caused due to injuries which she sustained in the accident.
(3.) THE Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has gone on the merits of this contention raised by the counsel for the Company and though the first part of the prayer in the application is granted but so far as the second prayer is concerned the same has been declined. THE Tribunal has gone on the merits of the matter and held that as there is no evidence that death of deceased-Pinky has caused due to the injuries sustained by her prayer to file claim petition by the petitioner cannot be granted. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, 1 am satisfied that this approach of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is wholly perverse. At the stage of considering the application filed by the petitioner for permission to file claim petition by them for the compensation for the death of their daughter Pinky in the motor accident as a result of injuries sustained by her in the accident, the Tribunal is under any legal obligation to go on the merits of the claim. In fact the petitioners were not properly advised. They being the parents of deceased daughter Pinky have all the right to file the claim petition on her death. That claim petition was maintainable and could not be dismissed at that stage on the ground of not producing any evidence that her death was caused due to injuries sustained by her in the accident. It is a matter of the trial of the claim petition. In case ultimately the claimant are not proved their case there may be some semblance of justification with the Tribunal to reject the claim petition on merits. But at this stage more so when the petitioner have a right to file such a petition without resorting to the provisions of O. 23 R. 3 CPC this application should not have been rejected. It is a case where the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has not considered socio economic aspect of this provision as well as the fact that the petitioners have independent right to file the claim application. The approach of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in this matter is contrary to the basic conception, purpose and object for which this provision has been enacted in the Motor Vehicles Act. It is a case where the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal leas not considered substance of the matter and has taken a hyper technical approach. Not only this the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has decided the application on the ground which otherwise was not available at that stage. This is a case where in case the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal impugned in the petition is allowed to stand it will result in causing injury and prejudice to the petitioners. In case this perverse order of the Tribunal is allowed to stand it will result in failure of justice to the petitioners. It is a different matter whether on merits ultimately the petitioners succeed or not in the matter but the consideration which prevail with the Tribunal and what the Tribunal expected to be proved at this stage by the petitioners is wholly a perverse and arbitrary approach. The order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is also not in consonance with justice oriented approach. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The order dated 16. 9. 2000 is quashed and set aside. The petitioners are permitted to file claim application for the compensation for the death of their daughter Pinky. However, it is made clear that this decision may not be taken as if this Court has accepted the case of the petitioners that death of their daughter Pinky has been caused due to the injuries which she sustained in the accident. It is a matter of the trial and it has to be gone into and decided in the claim petition if any filed by the petitioners for the compensation for the death of their daughter Pinky. ;