01Facts
The claim arose from a 27 February 2019 road accident involving a motorcycle and a car.
¶ 3, 14The motorcycle rider alleged that the car struck him while he was turning, causing injuries; his wife, who was riding pillion, later died from her injuries.
¶ 3, 14The Tribunal awarded the claimant ₹41,000 against the car’s owner, after the insurer had been deleted from the proceedings.
¶ 5–7In this appeal, the appellant contended that the Tribunal had not given the car’s owner an adequate opportunity to present evidence supporting the defence of contributory negligence.
¶ 10In a connected appeal arising from the claim concerning the deceased pillion passenger, a Division Bench had remanded the matter after finding that the owner had not been given an opportunity to adduce evidence.
¶ 10, 1602Issues
i.Whether the appellant was denied sufficient opportunity to present his defence before the Tribunal.
¶ 12ii.Whether the matter should therefore be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
¶ 12, 1703Law Applied
The appeal was brought under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
p. 2The Court applied the procedural principle that a party must be given an opportunity to adduce evidence and produce documents in support of its case before the Tribunal decides the matter.
¶ 10, 16–17The judgment cites no other statutory provision or precedent as the basis for its decision.
Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173
04Reasoning
The appellant’s defence was that the motorcycle rider had contributed to causing the accident, but the Tribunal had not allowed the car’s owner to adduce evidence on that issue.
¶ 10, 15The Court relied on the Division Bench’s finding in the connected appeal that the owner had been denied an opportunity to present evidence and documents.
¶ 16Since that finding concerned the same accident and owner, the Court concluded that the present claim also required fresh consideration with both sides given an opportunity to adduce evidence.
¶ 1705Holding
The Court answered the issue in the affirmative, set aside the Tribunal’s award, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
¶ 13, 18(i)It permitted the appellant to produce documents and adduce evidence, directed the Tribunal to give both sides an opportunity to present evidence, and ordered the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 5 November 2026.
¶ 18(ii)–(iii)The Tribunal was directed to dispose of the matter within four months of that date; any amount in deposit was to be transmitted to the Tribunal.
¶ 18(iv)–(v)Original Court PDF
SRI MOHAMMED OMERvsSRI SHIVARAJ KUMAR M N
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
