Piare Lal and Ors v. Satpal and Ors

FACTS N

¶2Mohan L on a scoo Naraingar truck bear accident w NOT IN DISPUTE Brief facts of the case are that o al (since deceased) along with S oter bearing registration No.PB rh. When they reached near Aa ring No.HR-37-7751 came from with their scooter. As a result

on 13.05.2002 at about 8.00 p.m. Smt. Shakuntla Devi was going B-02R-4223 from Kala Amb to amwala Pir Kala Amb road, one m Naraingarh side and caused the t, Mohan Lal received multiple

. g o e e e

simple an Smt. Shak received m disclosed to the pol made a st of deceas negligent No.2 and It has bee working a annum. I medical re who happ submitted MACT, A fact that was withd

¶3not appea order date

¶4submitted petition fi nd grievous injuries besides hea kuntla Devi, who was pillion multiple injuries and under sem her name as Kamlesh and name lice. However, later on when, s atement on 16.05.2002 that her n sed is Mohan Lal. The acciden driving of driver of the truck N 3 are owner and insurer of the en averred that the deceased w as mason-cum-labour contractor It has been averred that the de easons. The deceased had adopt pened to be son of elder broth d that earlier the claimant No.1 h Ambala City, but due to several e the claimant No.2-Gulzar Sing drawn. Upon notice of the claim petiti ar despite service and they were ed 29.07.2004. Respondent No.3 has conteste d that the claim petition is not ma iled at Amabla was withdrawn w ad injury and died on the spot. rider on the same scooter also mi-conscious condition wrongly e of the deceased as Ram Kumar she regained consciousness, she name is Shakuntla Devi and that nt was caused due to rash and No. HR-37-7751. Respondents offending vehicle, respectively. was 34 years of age and he was r and was earning 40,000/- per eceased could not marry due to ted Gulzar Singh claimant No.2, her of the deceased. It is also had filed a claim petition in the errors in the said petition and the gh was minor, the said petition ion, respondents No.1 and 2 did proceeded against ex parte vide ed the claim petition and has aintainable because earlier claim without permission of the court. . o y r e t d s . s r o , o e e n d e s m

¶5following

¶6on record SUBMIS

¶7the claim petition E without l Therefore From the pleadings of the pa g issues:-

¶1Whether the accident was truck registration No.HR 3 respondent No.1 causing d OPP

¶2Whether the petitioners compensation amount on Mohan Lal in the acciden who? OPP

¶3Whether the insured has vi of the insurance policy, as OPR3

¶4Relief. After taking into consideration , the learned Tribunal dismissed SIONS OF LEARNED COUN The learned counsel for the cla petition was solely dismissed on Exhibit P-4, filed before the M liberty to file fresh petition o e, he prayed that the present appe arties, the Tribunal framed the s caused due to involvement of 37-7751 being driven by Satpal death of Mohan Lal as alleged? are entitled to receive any account of death of deceased nt. If so, how much and from iolated any terms and conditions s alleged. If so to what effect ? the pleadings and the evidence the claim petition. NSELS FOR THE PARTIES aimants-appellants contends that n the ground that previous claim MACT, Ambala, was withdrawn on the same cause of action. eal be allowed. e f l ? y d m s ? e t m n .

¶9whole rec

¶10I have heard learned counsel cord of this case. The relevant portion of the awar "10. It is worth-noting that Gulzar Singh, adopted son of claim petition before Motor Ac on 17-3-2003. Unfortunately S 2003 itself and therefore, her l affidavit of Piare Lal brother deceased was 34 years old contractor and was earning Rs alleged that the deceased inc therefore, he did not marry a Singh in Baisakhi 2000 in acc ceremonies. The petitioners certificate mark C allegedly i High School, Gheer in accord son of Mohan Lal was a student

¶11The most material determination is whether the compensation or not. After sca am of the opinion that the cla Smt.Sardari Devi is not maintai proved to be the adopted son of them are not entitled to any com

¶12It is noteworthy that e claim petition for compensation Lal in the same very vehicular Claims Tribunal, Ambala City. 3-2003 Ex. P4 shows that cla withdrawn in the court of Shri S for the parties and perused the rd is reproduced as under: t Smt. Sardari Devi mother and deceased Mohan Lal filed this ccident Claims Tribunal, Karnal Smt. Sardari Davi died on 26-3-legal heirs were impleaded. The of the deceased shows that the and was working as labour s. 40,000/- per annum. He also capable of producing a child, and he adopted his son Gulzar cordance with Hindu rites and s also produced one school issued by Head Master, Geeta dance with which Gulzar Singh t of 5th standard in that school. l question that arises for petitioners are entitled to any anning the evidence on record I aim petition of petitioner No.1 inable and petitioner No.2 is not of Mohan Lal, therefore, both of mpensation at all. earlier Smt. Sardari Devi filed a n on account of death of Mohan accident before Motor Accident The copy of the order dated 29-aim petition was dismissed as Sanjeev Kumar, Motor Accident e d s l - e e r o

r d l a h r y I t f a n t - s t

Claims Tribunal, Ambala City to file a fresh claim petition on

¶13The learned counsel fo in fact Smt. Sardari Devi withdrawal of the claim petition petition but the Tribunal at Am claim petition as withdrawn. petitioner has cited Kantibh Municipal Corporation 1998(3) L. Shivakumaraswamy Vs. H. Court Cases Karnataka 583 an of H.P. through Collector 1989 has vehemently argued that it grant withdrawal of the petitio fresh petition. He has contend reject the entire prayer or allow counsel for the petitioners has etc. Vs. Udham Singh etc. 1989 and has argued that strict rules do not apply to proceedings bef the present claim petition was file a fresh claim petition o nevertheless the same is mainta

¶14I have given my thoug arguments of the learned couns Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Proc

WITHDRAWAL OF SU PART OF CLA institution of a s all or any of the abandon a part

Provided that where t person to whom without permission of the court the same cause of action. for the petitioners has urged that had filed an application for n with permission to file a fresh mbala City simply dismissed the The learned counsel for the hal D. Patel Vs. Ahmedabad ) Civil Court Cases (Gujrat) 97, Lingappa & others 1982 Civil nd Hans Raj Akrot Vs. The State 9 Civil Court Cases H.P. 45 and t was not open to the court to on and refuse permission to file ded that the court could either w the entire prayer. The learned s also cited Mrs. Vijay Chopra 9-2 PLR Punjab & Haryana 36 s of the Code of Civil Procedure efore Tribunal, therefore, even if filed without the permission to on the same cause of action ainable. ghtful consideration to the above sel for the petitioners. Order 23 cedure reads as under: UIT OR ABANDONMENT OF A AIM (1) At any time after the suit the plaintiff may, as against e defendants abandon his suit or of his claim: the plaintiff is a minor or other m the provisions contained in t t r h e e d

l e d o e r d a e f o n e A e t r r n

rules 1 to 14 of the suit not an abandoned with

(2) An application f sub-rule (1) sha the next friend other person is certificate of a abandonment pr benefit of the mi

(3) Where the Cour

(a) that a suit must defect, or

(b) that there are s the plaintiff to subject matter of

It may on such plaintiff permiss or such part of t a fresh suit in r such suit or such

(4) Where the plain

(a) abandons any s rule (1), or

(b) withdraws from without the per

(3),

he shall be liab may award an instituting any subject-matter of A perusal of the Haryana, Mo that as per Rule 220 provisions of Order XXXII. extend, neither ny part of the claim shall be hout the leave of the court. for leave under the proviso to all accompanied by affidavit of and also, if the minor or such represented by a pleader, by a pleader to the effect that the roposed is in his opinion, for the inor or such other person. rt is satisfied,:- t fail by reason of some formal sufficient grounds for allowing institute a fresh suit for the of a suit or part of a claim. terms as it thinks fit, grant the sion to withdraw from such suit the claim with liberty to institute respect of the subject matter of h part of the claim. tiff:- suit or part of claim under sub-m a suit or part of a claim rmission referred to in sub-rule ble for such costs as the Court nd shall be precluded from fresh suit in respect of such of such part of the claim. otor Vehicle Rules 1993 shows s of Order 23 Rules 1 to 3, of the r e o f h a e e l g e e t e f - m e t m h s e

Code of Civil Procedure are before the Claims Tribunal. proposition of law laid down Udham Singh etc. (supra) that Procedure do not apply to the Tribunal. However, in the i mentioned in the Haryana Mot provisions of Order 23 Rules proceedings before the Claims upon Smt. Sardari Devi claiman earlier claim petition with liber from the Claims Tribunal, Am laid down in the rulings cited petitioners the court can either the entire prayer and it is n withdrawal of suit and refuse However in the instant case the the file which could warrant Sardari Devi made & prayer se claim petition with liberty to fi same cause of action. The cla claim petition that there were petition filed before Motor Acc City and claimant No.2 was m keeping good health, therefore, conduct that petition at Ambal alleged in the present claim pet an application seeking withdra liberty to institute a fresh claim even copy of order Ex.P4 show the claimants made a simple st proceed with the petition an withdrawn. Accordingly the cla applicable to the proceedings There is no dispute with the in Mrs. Vijay Chopra etc.. Vs. strict rules of the Code of Civil proceedings before the Claims instant case it is specifically tor Vehicle Rules, 1993 that the s 1 to 3 are applicable to the s Tribunal. So it was incumbent nt No.l to seek withdrawal of the rty to file a fresh claim petition bala. It is true that as per law by the learned counsel for the reject the entire prayer or allow ot open to the court to grant e permission to file fresh suit. ere is absolutely no material on that the petitioner No.1 Smt. eeking withdrawal of her earlier file a fresh claim petition on the aimants have mentioned in their e several errors in the claim cident Claims Tribunal, Ambala inor and claimant No.l was not , they wore not in a position to la. The claimants have nowhere tition that they had in fact moved awal of the claim petition with m petition at Karnal. Further, ws that the learned, counsel for tatement that he did not want to nd the same be dismissed as aim petition filed by Smt. Sardari s e

l s y e e t e n w e w t

n

r e r m a t o e d h

r o s i

Devi was dismissed as withdra Tribunal, Ambala City. Once th Devi petitioner No.l was dismi claim petition against the same maintainable. She was preclu claim petition in respect of sa also Smt.Sardari Devi being mo to claim compensation on acco since she died within six days therefore, her legal heirs are no

¶15So far as the right of claim compensation being adop is concerned, it is pertinent evidence has been produced t was adopted by Mohan Lal de petitioners did not examine any

(PWl) the real father of Gulzar in his cross-examination that a made in their family Bahi as w deposed that his mother was from him which included nam Singh. He stated that he could n as it was lost. Even if the s petitioners could produce re department to prove that Gu Mohan Lal as his adopted so family Bahi in which entry rega by Mohan Lal was made wa omission on the part of the pe relating to ration card and f inference against them. No dou certificate mark C allegedly iss High School, Gheer, in accord awn by Motor Accident Claims he claim petition of Smt. Sardari issed as withdrawn, her similar e very respondents was not at all uded from instituting any fresh ame subject matter. Otherwise other of the deceased had a right ount of death of Mohan Lal and s of filing of the claim petition, ot entitled to any compensation. f claimant No.2 Gulzar Singh to pted son of Mohan Lal deceased to note that no documentary to this effect that Gulzar Singh eceased in Baisakhi 2000. The y other witness except Piare Lal r Singh. PW1 Piara Lal deposed an entry regarding adoption was well as school record. He also having a separate ration card mes of Mohan Lal and Gulzar not produce the said ration card said ration card was lost the ecord from Food & Supplies ulzar singh was residing with on. Further-more the alleged arding adoption of Gulzar Singh as also not produced. So, the etitioners to produce the record family Bahi raises an adverse ubt the petitioners produced one sued by the Head Master, Geeta dance with which Gulzar Singh s i r l h e t d

o d y h e l d s o d r d e s h d h e d e e a h

¶11Tribunal ground th MACT, A to file a

29.03.200 follows: s/o Mohan Lal was studying in that certificate was not duly pr of the school. The application Singh was not produced to s Gulzar Singh, admitted in the s the certificate mark C was n reliance can be placed on it. B to prove by cogent, concrete an Singh was adopted by Mohan L serving statement of PW1 Piar prove the adoption of his son deceased. In other words there that Gulzar Singh claimant No Lal is entitled to any compensa the above vehicular accident. T petitioners." A perusal of the impugned a (MACT Karnal) dismissed the hat the claimant had previously Ambala, which was withdrawn w fresh claim petition. This conc 03 (Exhibit P-4), passed by the M "File taken up today on the app claimant. The learned counse statement that he does not wa and the same be dismissed as claim petition is dismissed as w for the respondents be inform compliance." 5th standard in that school but roved by summoning the record n form of admission of Gulzar show that Mohan Lal had got chool as his adopted son. Since not duly proved therefore, no Burden was upon the petitioners nd definite evidence that Gulzar Lal deceased. However, the self re Lal itself is not sufficient to n Gulzar Singh by Mohan Lal e is no positive evidence to prove o.2 being adopted son of Mohan ation on account of his death in This issue is decided against the award reveals that the learned e claim petition solely on the filed a claim petition before the without obtaining explicit liberty clusion rests on the order dated MACT, Ambala, which reads as plication moved on behalf of the el for the claimant has made a ant to proceed with the petition s withdrawn. Accordingly, the withdrawn. The learned counsel med. File be consigned after t d r t e o s r f o l e n n e d e e y d s e a n e l r

¶12evident th MACT, A substantia stated tha sought pe citing her due to her

¶13discretion dismissed for liberty

¶14categorica of the offe

¶15dismissing ground th file afresh

¶16technical remedial beneficial accidents Adopting However, upon a closer examin hat the claimant had specifically Ambala, seeking withdrawal al drafting errors. In the appli at these errors could severely p ermission to withdraw the petit r inability to travel to Ambala a r advanced age and health condit It is evident that the MACT, Am n in considering the claimant' d the claim petition as withdrawn y to file a fresh petition. In the present proceedings, th al finding that the death of the d ending vehicle (HR-37-7751), dr The MACT, Karnal, furthe g the fresh claim petition filed b hat the earlier petition had been w h. Such an approach by the MA interpretation of procedural purpose of the Motor Vehic l legislation designed to ensure and their dependents receive a rigid procedural stance defeats nation of the records, it becomes moved an application before the of the claim petition due to ication, the claimant explicitly prejudice her interests. She also tion with liberty to file afresh, and effectively contest the case tion. mbala, failed to exercise judicial 's application and erroneously n without addressing the request he MACT, Karnal, recorded a deceased was caused by the use riven by Satpal Singh. er exacerbated the issue by y the claimant on the procedural withdrawn without permission to ACT, Karnal, reflects a hyper-rules, which undermines the cles Act, 1988. The Act is a e that victims of motor vehicle e just compensation promptly. s the very objective of the Act. s e o y o , e l y t a e y l o - e a e .

has clarifi of Civil Accident The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in ied that strict adherence to the pr Procedure is not mandatory Claims Tribunals. n a consistent line of judgments, rocedural provisions of the Code in proceedings before Motor , e r

5.

¶6by the MA beneficial the MAC entitled to Kaur and In sequel of the above, the hy ACT, Karnal, is contrary to the l nature of the Motor Vehicles A CT, Karnal, deserves to be set as o the compensation. in FAO No. d Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and "11.

Hon'ble Suprem Murti and others Vs. Punjab S TAC 738] held that the appel benefit of beneficial provision e

yper-technical approach adopted settled principles of law and the Act. Consequently, the award of side, and the claimants are held .4301 of 2006, titled as "Akaljit d Others" held as under:- me Court in the case of Ram State Electricity Board [2022(4) llants therein to be granted the enacted by the Parliament under d e f d t m ) e r

¶22to compen

¶23Supreme Varma 20 Transpor Chapter 11 of which Section compensation in the case of de and in the case grievous hurt of

12.

This Court in F and Others Vs. Happy and O held that since Motor Vehicle s the Judge should not go i provisions, under which the ap but should apply his judicial irregularities and not illegalitie been observed by the Hon'ble caused to the claimants or the the limb cannot be compensate every effort by exercising Further, Justice should actuall application of judicial mind w and caution and by showing should be such that they streng public and litigants in judicial s In view of the above, the claim nsation to the tune of Rs.5 lakh. So far as the interest part is c Court in Dara Singh @ Dha 019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and rt Corporation (2022) 5 Sup 164 provides for payment of eath in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs f Rs.2.5 lakhs. FAO-195-2006 titled as Mamta Others, decided on 29.05.2024, tatute is a beneficial legislation, into the technicalities of the pplication or petition is moved l mind, as these are only the es which cannot be cured. It has e Supreme Court that the loss relationship or to the victim of ed. Still the Court should make its discretion empathetically. ly be shown to be delivered by with intelligence, prudence, care empathy. The Court decision gthen the trust and confidence of system and judiciary." mants/appellants are held entitled concerned, as held by Hon'ble ara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Others VS. Tamil Nandu State preme Court Cases 107, the f s a

e d e s s f e

y e n f d e h e e

appellant-enhanced its realiza

¶24the enhan Tribunal w of this jud of comp claimants the Tribun

25.

26.

¶27-claimant is granted the intere amount from the date of filing ation. The nced amount of compensation within a period of two months f dgment. The Tribunal is further pensation along with intere /appellants are directed to furnis nal.

Disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, a est @ 9% per annum on the of claim petition till the date of is directed to deposit n along with interest with the from the date of receipt of copy directed to disburse the amount est in equal shares. The sh their bank accounts details to also stand disposed of. e f t e y t e o