Madras High Court has held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was not a regular court and it was expected to adopt a proactive approach.
Even the judgment of a criminal court was not binding upon the claims tribunal which was expected to peruse the oral and documentary evidence that was adduced before it and come to an independent conclusion, Justice S Vimala said.
The Judge was allowing an appeal by one Basker against the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge and Fast Track Court in Salem, rejecting his claim for compensation.
Basker suffered injuries when the bike he was riding was allegedly hit by a jeep driven by constable Balamurugan on Salem Yercaud road on August 28, 2005.
His accident claim was dismissed by the tribunal on the ground that the police closed the case as "mistake of fact".
The judge, who set aside the tribunal's order, said police had "no courage" to investigate the case and hence they closed it as a "mistake of fact."
Referring to an apex court judgment, she said even assuming that referral of the criminal case was factually incorrect, the duty of the tribunal as contemplated under Section 168 of MV Act was to hold enquiry into the claim.
The Judge further said the tribunal constituted under the MV Act was not a regular court and it was expected to have a proactive approach.
"Considering the nature of injuries and the period of treatment and consequent permanent disability, directed the Superintendent of Police Namakkal and Constable Balamurugan to deposit a sum of Rs 2,00,800 along with 7.5 per cent interest per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till date of deposit within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment," she said.
