JUDGMENT
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This miscellaneous appeal on behalf of claimant-appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment/award dated 18.12.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Ajmer, in motor accident claims case No. 29 of 1990, whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application of the appellants in view of finding of Issue No. 1, whereby, it was held that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased died due to accident with the truck No. R.P.Z. 3429.
3. Learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant contended that Ext. 4 First Information Report was lodged in respect of this accident, wherein the vehicle number was given. He further contended that Ext. 3 charge-sheet was also placed on record before the Tribunal, wherein also the above truck number was given. He also contended that a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was given to the vehicle owner, who did not give any reply to the effect that his vehicle was not involved in the accident. The contention of the learned Counsel for the claimant appellants is that the learned Tribunal did not appreciate the applicant’s evidence properly and wrongly decided issue No. 1 against the appellant.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the finding given by the Tribunal in respect of issue No. 1 is quite just and reasonable and no case for interference by this Court is made out.
5. I have considered the rival submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and the impugned judgment as well as the record of the learned Tribunal.
6. Exhibit 3 charge-sheet as well as Ex. 4, the First Information Report, both have been proved in the present case, wherein the vehicle number was given, therefore, it was clear that involvement of the vehicle was proved and from these, it is also clear that the deceased died due to this accident with the vehicle truck No. R.P.Z. 3429, therefore, the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in not appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record while deciding Issue No. 1. Learned Tribunal further failed to appreciate that the provisions relating to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in respect of compensation are piece of social and welfare legislation and it should have been interpreted and appreciated in such manner, so as to give the benefit to the persons for whose benefit, the Act has been enacted.
7. In these circumstances, I find that the learned Tribunal wrongly decided Issue No. 1 and I set aside the same. Consequently, the impugned judgment is also set aside.
8. In view of above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Ajmer to decide the claim application of the appellants afresh on the basis of aforesaid observations and after appreciating the evidence available on record. The parties are directed to appear before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I, Ajmer on 6.3.2006. The record of the Tribunal be sent back immediately.
9. There will be no order as to costs.