[2025:RJ-JP:26849] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3747/2008 1. Amtul Aziz w/o Azijurrehman 2. Habiburrehman 3. Khalilulrehman 4. Shalilulrehman 5. Jalilulrehman 6. Nadim 7. Majiburrehman All sons of Azijurrehman 8. Rashida 9. Khurshida 10. Gazala Daughter of Azijurrehman, R/o Kafla Gali, Near Haveli Kallumiyan, Tonk(Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. Shankar Singh, Driver, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Depot Tonk (Raj.) 2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, through Chairman, Parivahan Marg, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through Chief Manager, Tonk Depot, tonk (Raj.) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anirudh Singh Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 17/07/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 23.05.2005 whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk while invoking Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of [2025:RJ-JP:26849] (2 of 4) [CMA-3747/2008] Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'), rejected the claim petition filed by the claimant/ appellant. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition vide impugned order dated 23.05.2005. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has merely heard the argument of the claimant/appellant on the application filed under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and instead of passing any order with regard to the application of interim award under the provision of Section 140 Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 the learned Tribunal sou moto exercised its power under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC and rejected the claim petition. Therefore, the impugned order may kindly be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the learned Tribunal. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-claimant/respondent vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 4. Heard and considered the submission made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. 5. A bare perusal of the record reveals that the show cause notice was issued against the non-claimant/respondent No.1 Shankar Singh to appear before the learned Tribunal on 23.05.2005. However, the service upon the non-claimant/ respondent No.1 remained unserved and the service upon the non-claimant/respondent No.1 was ordered to be dispensed with. 6. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal heard the arguments in [2025:RJ-JP:26849] (3 of 4) [CMA-3747/2008] relation to the application filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for passing the interim order and the learned Tribunal, erroneously without passing any order on the application filed under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 suo moto invoked the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151, of the CPC and rejected the main claim petition. 7. Since in the present matter, the arguments were heard only for the purposes of interim award on the petitions filed under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 therefore, the claim petition cannot be rejected while suo moto invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11, of the CPC. Practice and procedure adopted by the learned tribunal is highly arbitrary thus untenable in the eye of law accordingly. 8. In this view of the matter the impugned award passed by the Tribunal without hearing the parties or granting an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and prove their case cannot be approved. 9. Accordingly, the present appeal succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. 10. Further, the learned Tribunal is directed to adjudicate the case afresh on merits. 11. Since, the present claim petition pertains to an accident that occurred in the year 2003, the learned Tribunal is directed to decide the pending case preferably within one (1) year from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. 12. Parties are directed to appear before the Court on 13.08.2025. [2025:RJ-JP:26849] (4 of 4) [CMA-3747/2008] 13. Registry is directed to send the record of the case to the concerned learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal along with the copy of this order. (MANEESH SHARMA),J DIKSHA MISHRA /66