- (1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed by the petitionersclaimants aggrieved by order dated 10.11.14 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.47/14 and 48/14, whereby while deciding the application preferred by the claimants under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short "the Act') for payment of compensation under 'No Fault Liability', the matter stands adjourned to 10.7.15, for consideration of separate application preferred by the National Insurance Company Limited in both the claim petitions for impleading the owner, driver and insurer of yet another vehicle involved in the accident, as party respondents.
(2.) THE claimants are legal representatives of deceased Neelesh Bapna and Dheeraj Mathur who succumbed to the injuries suffered by them in a motor vehicle accident. On 25.10.13, while they were travelling in a vehicle Tata Safari Car RJ -19 -UA -6813, from Bikaner to Jodhpur, the vehicle was hit by a truck (Dumper) RJ -21 -GA -0083 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner. The claim petitions are filed by the legal representatives of the deceased claiming compensation impleading the owner, driver and insurer Company of the truck as party respondents.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the claim petitions, the petitioners filed applications claiming compensation under 'No Fault Liability'. The insurer of the truck, the National Insurance Company ("Insurance Company"), preferred applications under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC seeking impleadment of owner and insurer of Tata Safari Car RJ -19 -UA -6813, as party to the proceedings. The matter was taken up for consideration by the Tribunal on 10.11.14. The applications preferred by the claimants under Section 140 of the Act were allowed by the Tribunal, however, hearing of applications preferred by the Insurance Company was deferred by the Tribunal and the matter stands adjourned to 10.7.15 for filing reply to the applications and arguments thereon. Hence, these petitions. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that on 10.11.14, the arguments on applications seeking compensation under 'No Fault Liability' as also on applications preferred under Order I Rule 10 CPC were heard by the Tribunal, however, while disposing of the applications under Section 140 of the Act, the applications preferred by the Insurance Company under Order I Rule 10 CPC were not decided and the matters were adjourned by the Tribunal to 10.7.15, for filing reply to the applications and arguments. Learned counsel submitted that in the first instance, the Tribunal delayed the disposal of the applications preferred under Section 140 of the Act and thereafter, while disposing of the applications under Section 140 of the Act, the hearing of the applications preferred under Order I Rule 10 CPC by the Insurance Company has been deferred for a period of eight months. Learned counsel submitted that on 10.11.11 on the statement made by the counsel appearing for the claimants that the claimants do not want to file any reply to the applications, the arguments of the parties on the applications were heard by the Tribunal, yet, the same were not decided and were adjourned for consideration to such a long period. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ibrahim vs. Raju and Ors., 2012 AIR(SCW) 413, learned counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again emphasised that officers who preside over Tribunals should adopt the proactive approach and ensure that the claims filed under the Act are disposed of with required urgency and compensation is awarded to the victims of the accident and/or their legal representatives expeditiously. Accordingly, it is submitted that act of the Tribunal in giving such a long date for consideration of applications preferred under Order I Rule 10 CPC is highly arbitrary. Drawing the attention of the court to the cause list dated 10.11.14 of the Tribunal, showing the dates fixed in various matters listed on that day, learned counsel submitted that in all the matters a short date is given but only in the cases of the claimants, such a long date has been given by the Tribunal.;