A bench of Justice Rahul Bharti highlighted the serious consequences of procedural errors, which could potentially undo years of legal efforts, stating:

“..there exists both the duty and necessity for the presiding officers of courts/tribunals to be relentlessly vigilant in the conduct of judicial proceedings so as to exclude and eliminate the scope of any error, intentional or unintentional. , which may result in the annulment of the entire legal procedure at any time”

The court made the observations in a case arising out of a 1998 road accident, involving a dump vehicle, which tragically resulted in the death of Mst. Taja Bano. Her husband and two minor children filed a compensation claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Baramulla, resulting in a compensation of ₹3,29,200 in their favor on March 24 2011.

In terms of its award, MACT Baramulla placed the responsibility for payment of compensation on the insurer, namely United India Insurance Company Ltd., thereby granting the benefit of insurance compensation in favor of the owner and driver of the vehicle in question.

Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company as well as the registered owner filed an appeal.

Disposing of the case, Justice Bharti noted that Abdul Rashid Kuboo, the registered owner of the offending vehicle, was never served notice of the claim petition, which is a basic requirement in legal proceedings. Although he was named as a respondent, there was no record of a subpoena or notice being sent to him.

Justice Bharti pointed out that the lower court had wrongly assumed his presence due to the appearance of a lawyer who had not filed necessary documents. vakalatnama in the name of Kuboo. This was a clear procedural defect, as the court proceeded without verifying the meaning of the notice, leading to an erroneous assumption that the defendant was present, he observed.

Finding that the ex parte proceedings were without proper basis, the court said that MACT, Baramulla, had proceeded ex parte against Kuboo despite the absence of any legal basis for such a move. The Court noted that the presence of a lawyer for Kuboo was incorrectly recorded in the court order, but that there was no proper legal representation.

The failure to serve proper notice or provide meaningful representation gave rise to an unfair ex parte award against the appellant. The Court emphasized that such procedural negligence could seriously undermine the integrity of the judicial process, he contended.

The Court said MACT’s decision to shift responsibility for compensation entirely to the insurer, without ensuring that the registered owner was properly informed and given an opportunity to defend its position, was a serious defect.

Justice Bharti did not mince his words when discussing the serious consequences of such procedural errors. He noted,

“Procedural negligence on the part of a court in the conduct of legal proceedings is a matter which permeates a serious gap in the legal process, having an instantaneous and constant potential to upset the entire course of the legal proceedings, no matter what happens. even up to the final settlement stage of a given legal proceeding.

The Court further emphasized that such defects cannot be excused, particularly when they affect the fairness of judicial outcomes.

Considering the seriousness of these procedural errors, the Court set aside the award made by the MACT, Baramulla, specifically relating to the issue of liability between the registered owner and the insurer. The Court remanded the matter to MACT for further determination on this issue, ordering that both parties be given an opportunity to present their evidence and pleadings.

Case Title: Abdul Rashid Kuboo v. Gh. Hassan Khan and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 317

Click here to read/download the judgment