KESHOTE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THIS is not only a frivolous writ petition but wholly misconceived, misplaced and ill-advised matter in this Court. I cannot resist myself to state that the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is wasting the peoples money in undesirable and avoidable litigation. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is not an ordinary litigant. It is a public sector or Government of Rajasthan undertaking and it is State or agency or instrumentality of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and it has to behave, act and exhibit itself to be a welfare State. It should not have indulged in the litigation of the nature as what it is brought by it in the Court. The Corporation being a State or instrumentality or the agency of the State should not take dishonest and frivolous objections against the applications filed by the claimants for the compensation for the loss of life of their only bread earner in the motor vehicle accident. Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 enacted with some object and purpose. A mere reading thereof leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that it is a benevolent piece of legislation. This provision has been inserted in the Act to provide immediate financial help to the dependents of the victim of a person who died in a motor vehicle accident. It has a socio economic object and purpose and all endeavor has to be made by the Corporation that this position is given effect to in the spirit and manner for which it has been inserted in the Act of 1988. But here the Corporation has acted contrary to what it is expected from it. It has made all the attempts to see that the claimants are not getting the benefits of this benevolent provisions of Section 140 of the Act of 1988. From the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal which is impugned in this petition, I find that these objections taken by the petitioner by filing two applications is absolutely dishonest objections.
(3.) THE first objection raised regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to entertain and try the claim petition filed by the respondent claimants. The second objection raised that the widow of the person died in accident is the Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti and the prayer has been made for calling of the record that is form filed by that lady for election of the office of Pradhan, Rashan card, voter list, voter's identification card and the application filed by the son of deceased for service etc. Both these objections are not only frivolous but also dishonest which is clearly borne out from the fact that Section 166 of the Act has been amended and now choice of the form to file the claim petition by the claimants is much more wider than what it was earlier. Having gone through the impugned order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa I am satisfied that it has not committed any illegality much less any perversity not to accept any of objections raised by the petitioner. In fact the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should have considered the matter to award exemplary cost against the Corporation for raising such a dishonest objection in a claim petition filed for the compensation for the loss of the life of the member of the family in a motor vehicle accident caused by the offending vehicle belonging to the Corporation. Section 140 provides for grant of the interim compensation to the claimants on the principles of no fault liability and where this is the underline object and purpose of this provision how for it is justified by the Corporation to raise such a frivolous, baseless and dishonest pleas. The Corporation should not act or proceed with the object and purpose and intention to get the claim petition rejected on such a technical ground. Even otherwise ultimately if the Tribunal reach to the conclusion that it has no jurisdiction in the matter what benefit the Corporation will get by raising this objection. Then the claim petition has to be returned to the claimants for presentation thereof in the Tribunal which has jurisdiction in the matter. This will result in unnecessary litigation as well as the delay in the litigation. Not only this it further results in consuming unnecessarily valuable and precious time of the Court in these days where there is heavy pendency of the matters in the Courts. The Corporation looking to its status is to proceed and act in such matters with the justice oriented approach. It has to make all endeavor to see that as far as possible single second of the Courts judicial time is not wasted in deciding the frivolous and baseless applications filed by it. In fact in the case of the claim applications filed for the compensation for the death of the person in accident by the claimants the approach of the Corporation should have been to see that as far as possible on the very first date the matter is finally decided. In such matters rest of the thing except the question of negligence is a computer programme and for this negligence question the Corporation may not need that much of time to get the decision thereon of the Tribunal. Instead of consuming and wasting the Tribunal time by filing these two applications the Corporation should have find out the ways and suggests to the Tribunal for expeditious disposal of the matter. The delay in the disposal of the matter ultimately results in loss to the Corporation as on the final decision the Tribunals are awarding interest on the amount compensation awarded against the Corporation. This burden is avoidable in case the Corporation acts and it is also expected in the manner as what it is suggested and observed in the preceding part of this judgment. ;