1 MAC No. 1747 of 2023 2025:CGHC:46476 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1747 of 2023  Smt. Bedan Bai W/o Janakram, Aged About 60 Years, Caste Satnami R/o Village Sukli, P.S. Kunda, Tahsil Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.). ... Appellant/Claimant versus 1. Loknath Badhai S/o Anant Badai, R/o Sevati, P.S. Kirnapur, District Balaghat (M.P.) (Driver). 2. Anand Agrawal S/o Shri Omprakash Agrawal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Bhanegaon, P.S. Kirnapur, Tahsil Loji, District Balaghat (M.P.) (Owner). 3. Branch Manager, Rayal Sundram Insurance Company, Rama Trade Centre, Second Floor Old Bus Stand Infront of Rajeev Plaza, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer). ... Respondents For Appellant :- Mr. C.K. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 :- Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate. SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 10.09.2025 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant challenging the impugned award dated ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.09.11 18:18:03 +0530 2 MAC No. 1747 of 2023 03.10.2023 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 49/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the claimant’s application for grant of compensation. 2. Facts of the case are that appellant’s/claimant’s son died in the accident on 25.03.2017 leading to file MACT No.52/2017 which came to be dismissed for want of prosecution on 13.05.2019, thereafter second claim application bearing MACT No.49/2019 has been filed which was rejected on 03.10.2023 on the ground of suppression of the earlier dismissal of claim case MACT No.52/2017, against which the instant appeal has been preferred. 3. Mr. C.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that justice oriented approach ought to have been adopted by the Claims Tribunal rather than dismissing the claim application on the technical ground for non-disclosure of the earlier claim application. He would also submit that the claimant is aged about 60 years and her husband has also died, therefore, the order impugned be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Claims Tribunal for hearing and disposal in accordance with law within the stipulated time. 3 MAC No. 1747 of 2023 4. Mr. Anupam Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.3, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and support the impugned order passed by the Claims Tribunal. He would also submit that there is suppression of fact about the earlier dismissal of the claim case, therefore, the Claims Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claimant’s application for grant of compensation. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records meticulously. 6. Admittedly, first claim case bearing MACT No.52/2017 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 13.05.2019 by the Claims Tribunal, however, while filing the second claim case bearing MACT No.49/2019 by the claimants, the fact of the dismissal of first claim case could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal by the claimant(s) which was filed by respondent No.3 herein- Insurance Company along with application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (for short “CPC”). Since it was a claim application and object is to provide just and fair compensation to the claimants even the strict rule of principle of res judicata would not be applicable. However, once the fact of dismissal of earlier claim case i.e. MACT 4 MAC No. 1747 of 2023 No.52/2017 brought to notice of the Court, the course open to the Tribunal was to decide the second claim case decide on merits rather then dismissing on the ground of suppression of fact of dismissal of earlier claim case and ought to have adopted justice oriented approach. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the matter of Mahendra Rathore v. Omkar Singh and others 1 has held the Tribunal should adopt justice oriented approach and not a pedantic or technical approach is excepted to be adopted and observed as under:- 4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in our opinion, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ought to have recalled the order of dismissal of the claim petition dated 27-1-1998 and restored the petition to its original status, condoning the delay in moving the application for restoration. The application was supported by a medical certificate showing the applicant having fallen ill on the date of hearing. The applicant's own statement on oath remained uncontroverted. In such matters a justice-oriented approach, and not a too technical or pedantic approach is expected to be adopted by courts more so when the application sought to be restored for hearing was a claim case arising out of a motor accident. Refusal on the part of the Tribunal to restore the claim petition, as also on the part of the High Court to show indulgence to the appellant has occasioned failure of justice. The Tribunal could have put the parties to terms to meet the ends of justice but should not have refused to restore the claim petition. We, accordingly, 1 AIR 2002 SC 505 5 MAC No. 1747 of 2023 allow these appeals and set aside the impugned orders of the High Court as also of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 27-1-1998. The claim petition is restored to its original number and remanded to the Tribunal for its trial on merits. The proceedings hereafter shall commence from the stage at which the same were on 27- 1-1998 when the claim petition was dismissed in default of appearance. The Tribunal shall expeditiously dispose of the petition. 7. In that view of the mater, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Claims Tribunal, Mungeli for hearing and disposal of the claims case within three months from the date of receipt of copy this order, in accordance with law. However, the Insurance Company is directed to pay ₹10,000/- to the appellant for prosecuting the claim case as the accident has taken place on 25.03.2017, more than 8 years have passed and also the Insurance Company has taken a frivolous plea to disown the liability and got the claim case rejected. 8. With the aforesaid observation / direction the instant appeal stands disposed off. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Ankit