Insurance Company Cannot Be Deleted from Motor Accident Claim Proceedings Without Recording Evidence

The appellants, original claimants, filed a motor accident claim petition, MACP No. 110 of 2020 (Old No. 124 of 2016), before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Dharampur, Valsad.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition because the claimants had not taken steps to effect service upon the respondents and had failed to remain present before it. Their subsequent restoration application was also dismissed on the same ground.

While dismissing the claim petition, the Tribunal deleted the Insurance Company by an order below Exh. 20, holding that the accident occurred at 10:30 a.m. on 9 March 2009, whereas the insurance policy commenced at 15:01 hours on the same day.

The claimants challenged the orders under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. During the appeal, respondent No. 1, the driver, died.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition and rejecting the restoration application solely because the claimants had not taken steps for service and had remained absent?

Whether the Tribunal could delete the Insurance Company from the proceedings, without recording evidence, on the basis of the alleged discrepancy between the time of the accident and the commencement of the insurance policy?

Whether the claim proceedings ought to be restored to enable adjudication on merits in light of the beneficial object of the Motor Vehicles Act?

The Court applied Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for an appeal against an award or order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

It also applied the principle that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are intended to advance a beneficial and remedial social-welfare legislation; therefore, claimants should ordinarily be afforded an opportunity to have their claims adjudicated on merits, subject to appropriate procedural directions.

The Court further exercised jurisdiction under Section 105 of the Code of Civil Procedure, setting aside the interlocutory order deleting the Insurance Company because such deletion, without recording evidence, was impermissible.

The death of the driver, who was not a necessary party to the claim proceedings, justified abatement of the appeal against him and his deletion from the array of parties.

Although the Court found that the claimants had remained inactive before the Tribunal and had not acted diligently, it held that the nature and object of motor accident claim proceedings required that they be given an opportunity to present their case on merits.

The dismissal for non-service and non-appearance therefore could not be allowed to conclusively defeat the claim.

Further, the Tribunal’s deletion of the Insurance Company based only on the timing of the accident and the commencement of the policy, without recording evidence, prematurely determined a disputed issue and was procedurally impermissible.

Accordingly, the Court set aside both the dismissal and the order below Exh. 20, while directing a fresh adjudication uninfluenced by the earlier decision or the High Court’s observations.

The orders passed below Exhs. 1 and 20 in MACP No. 110 of 2020 were quashed and set aside, and the claim proceedings were restored to the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Dharampur, Valsad, for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Respondent No. 1, the deceased driver, was deleted from the array of parties as he was not a necessary party.

The Tribunal was directed to frame issues, if not already framed, within one week from 8 October 2026, decide the claim within three months of receiving the order, and permit the parties to lead further evidence if desired.

Both parties were directed to remain present before the Tribunal on 8 October 2026, and the Registry was directed to transmit the record and proceedings before that date.