2025:UHC:9479 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 569 of 2012 28 October, 2025 Raesh Ahmad & another --Petitioners Versus Sri Jagveer Singh & another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Sangeeta Adhikari Patni Advocate holding brief of Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, Advocate for respondent No.2. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) This appeal against order preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.07.2010, passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar at Rudrapur in M.A.C.P. Case No.238 of 2007 Raes Ahmad and another Vs. Sri Jagveer Singh and other, whereby, the said Tribunal has rejected the claim petition of the appellants/claimants. 2. Facts in a nutshell are that the claim petition was filed by the appellants before the Tribunal with the averments that their daughter named Kumari Rehana on 06.03.2007 was coming back on her bicycle after giving examination of Class-7. At about 12:30 p.m. the offending vehicle being DL1GA9943 L.P. Truck being loaded with sugarcane was going towards Majhola. The driver of the said vehicle by driving the vehicle in rashly and negligently hit the cycle of daughter of the claimants, due to which their daughter was dashed from the front 1 2025:UHC:9479 tire and died on the spot itself. This way the prayer to grant the compensation of Rs. 5 lakh was made. Before the Tribunal the defendant no.1 vehicle owner filed his written statement and stated that the Truck was not being driven rashly or negligently and even if any liability arises, the same to be paid by the defendant no.2 Insurance Company with whom the offending Truck was insured. 3. The defendant no.2 Insurance Company also filed its written statement, in which, it was stated that on the date of accident the offending Truck was not insured and the accident occurred due to the fault on the part of the deceased herself. 4. On the basis of pleadings of parties, four issues were framed by the learned Tribunal. Despite several opportunities claimants/appellants failed to produce any evidence before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal left with no option but to reject the claim petition and accordingly the claim petition was rejected by the impugned judgment and order. Feeling aggrieved, they have come up in appeal before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has emphatically argued before the Court that they were never informed by their counsel about the status of the case pending before the Tribunal. It was also stated by them that even though they enquired from their counsel about the case but they were misled and never informed about actual status of the case and to produce evidence. It was also stated that their case been decided without giving any opportunity to them. 6. It is a settled law that no litigant should be 2 2025:UHC:9479 made to suffer on the fault if any committed by his counsel. In this matter it is the case of the appellants all through out that they were kept in dark about the pendency of their case. Even on being made several enquiries, their counsel did not inform about the pendency of the case which resulted into decision of their case against them. In this regard they also made a complaint against the said counsel to the Bar Association Rudrapur Udham Singh Nagar with copy to Uttarakhand Bar Association Nainital. 7. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the claimants saying that despite several opportunities, the appellants failed to produce their evidence before the Tribunal and thus the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim petition. 8. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has been constituted to decide the case of the victim in question in order to provide justice to them. It is a beneficial piece of legislation and therefore the provisions are to be interpreted liberally in favour of the victims/claimants. It was further argued that due to the lapse on the parts of the advocate the appellants/claimants cannot be made to suffer. 9. I am in full agreement with the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. In this foregoing reasons they have been deprived of the opportunity to produce their evidence. In my considered view, the interest of justice would be met if the matter is remitted to the concerned Tribunal to decide the case afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with law and after providing opportunity to produce evidence. 3 2025:UHC:9479 10. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 23.07.2010, passed by M.A.C.T./District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar at Rudrapur in M.A.C.P. Case No.238 of 2007 Raes Ahmad and another Vs. Sri Jagveer Singh and others is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the said Tribunal to decide it afresh expeditiously after giving the opportunity of hearing to the parties to adduce their evidence. Parties are directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 28.10.2025 Nahid 4