High Court
Case Details
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE 2. p.m. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.05.2002 at about 8.00 p.m. Brief facts of the case are that on Mohan Lal (since deceased) along with Smt. Shakuntla Devi was going Mohan Lal (since deceased) along with Smt. Shakuntla Devi was going Mohan Lal (since deceased) along with Smt. Shakuntla Devi was going Mohan Lal (since deceased) along with Smt. Shakuntla Devi was going Kala Amb to on a scooter bearing registration No.PB-02R-4223 from Kala Amb to on a scooter bearing registration No.PB on a scooter bearing registration No.PB Naraingarh. When they reached near Aamwala Pir Kala Amb road, one Naraingarh. When they reached near Aamwala Pir Kala Amb road, one Naraingarh. When they reached near Aamwala Pir Kala Amb road, one Naraingarh. When they reached near Aamwala Pir Kala Amb road, one truck bearing No.HR-37-7751 came from Naraingarh truck bearing No.HR side and caused the 7751 came from Naraingarh side and caused the Mohan Lal received multiple accident with their scooter. As a result, Mohan Lal received multiple accident with their scooter. As a result accident with their scooter. As a result RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment (O&M) and died on the spot. simple and grievous injuries besides head injury and died on the spot. simple and grievous injuries besides head injur simple and grievous injuries besides head injur -2- Smt. Shakuntla Devi, who was pillion rider on the same scooter also Smt. Shakuntla Devi, who was pillion rider on the same scooter also Smt. Shakuntla Devi, who was pillion rider on the same scooter also Smt. Shakuntla Devi, who was pillion rider on the same scooter also received multiple injuries and under semi received multiple injuri conscious condition wrongly es and under semi-conscious condition wrongly disclosed her name as Kamlesh and name of the deceased as Ram Kumar disclosed her name as Kamlesh and name of the deceased as Ram Kumar disclosed her name as Kamlesh and name of the deceased as Ram Kumar disclosed her name as Kamlesh and name of the deceased as Ram Kumar to the police. However, later on when, she regained consciousness to the police. However, later on when she she regained consciousness, she t made a statement on 16.05.2002 that her name is Shakuntla Devi and that made a statement on 16.05.2002 that her name is Shakuntla Devi and tha made a statement on 16.05.2002 that her name is Shakuntla Devi and tha of deceased is Mohan Lal. The accident was caused due to rash and of deceased is Mohan Lal. The accident was caused due to rash and of deceased is Mohan Lal. The accident was caused due to rash and of deceased is Mohan Lal. The accident was caused due to rash and 7751. Respondents negligent driving of driver of the truck No. HR-37-7751. Respondents negligent driving of driver of the truck No. HR negligent driving of driver of the truck No. HR No.2 and 3 are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, respectively. No.2 and 3 are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, respectively. No.2 and 3 are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, respectively. No.2 and 3 are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, respectively. It has been averred that the deceased was 3 It has been 4 years of age and he was that the deceased was 34 years of age and he was working as mason-cum-labour contractor and was earning working as mason per labour contractor and was earning 40,000/- per that the deceased could not marry due to annum. It has been averred that the deceased could not marry due to that the deceased could not marry due to annum. It has been medical reasons. The deceased had adopted Gulzar Singh claimant No.2, medical reasons. The deceased had adopted Gulzar Singh claimant No.2, medical reasons. The deceased had adopted Gulzar Singh claimant No.2, medical reasons. The deceased had adopted Gulzar Singh claimant No.2, who happened to be son of elder brother of the deceased. who happened to be so It is also n of elder brother of the deceased. It is also that earlier the claimant No.1 had filed a claim petition in the submitted that earlier the claimant No.1 had filed a claim petition in the that earlier the claimant No.1 had filed a claim petition in the submitted the MACT, Ambala City, but due to several errors in the said petition and the MACT, Ambala City, but due to several errors MACT, Ambala City, but due to several errors fact that the claimant No.2-Gulzar Singh was minor id petition Gulzar Singh was minor, the said petition was withdrawn. was withdrawn. 3. n, respondents No.1 and 2 did Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents No.1 and 2 did Upon notice of the claim petitio vide not appear despite service and they were proceeded against ex parte vide not appear despite service and they were proceeded against not appear despite service and they were proceeded against order dated 29.07.2004. order dated 29.07.2004. 4. Respondent No.3 has contested the claim petition and has Respondent No.3 has contested the claim petition and has Respondent No.3 has contested the claim petition and has t the claim petition is not maintainable because earlier claim submitted that the claim petition is not maintainable because earlier claim t the claim petition is not maintainable because earlier claim submitted tha petition filed at Amabla was withdrawn without permission of the court. petition filed at Amabla was withdrawn without permission of the court. petition filed at Amabla was withdrawn without permission of the court. RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment (O&M) 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the -3- following issues:- following issues: 1. Whether the accident was caused due to involvement of was caused due to involvement of truck registration No.HR 37 7751 being driven by Satpal .HR 37-7751 being driven by Satpal .1 causing death of Mohan Lal as alleged? respondent No.1 causing death of Mohan Lal as alleged? .1 causing death of Mohan Lal as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive any Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive any Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive any compensation amount on account of death of deceased compensation amount on account of death of deceased compensation amount on account of death of deceased ent. If so, how much and from Mohan Lal in the accident. If so, how much and from ent. If so, how much and from who? OPP sured has violated any terms and conditions 3. Whether the insured has violated any terms and conditions sured has violated any terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged. If so to what effect ? of the insurance policy, as alleged. If so to what effect ? of the insurance policy, as alleged. If so to what effect ? OPR3 4. Relief. 6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on record, the learne dismissed the claim petition.
Legal Reasoning
SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 7.
Legal Reasoning
appellants contends that The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that The learned counsel for the claimants claim the claim petition was solely dismissed on the ground that previous claim the claim petition was solely dismissed on the ground that the claim petition was solely dismissed on the ground that 4, filed before the MACT, Ambala, was withdrawn petition Exhibit P-4, filed before the MACT, Ambala, was withdrawn 4, filed before the MACT, Ambala, was withdrawn petition Exhibit P without liberty to file fresh petition on the same cause of action. without liberty to file fresh petition on the same cause of action. without liberty to file fresh petition on the same cause of action. without liberty to file fresh petition on the same cause of action. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed Therefore he prayed that the present appeal be allowed. RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment (O&M) 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the -4- whole record of this case. whole record of this case. 10. of the award is reproduced as under: The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under: “10. It is worth-noting that Smt mother and noting that Smt. Sardari Devi mother and Gulzar Singh, adopted son of filed this ulzar Singh, adopted son of deceased Mohan Lal filed this claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal on 17-3-2003. Unfortunately Smt. Sardari - 2003. Unfortunately Smt. Sardari Davi died on 26-3- aded. The 2003 itself and therefore, her legal heirs were impleaded. The 2003 itself and therefore, her legal heirs were impl affidavit of Piare Lal brother of the deceased shows that the affidavit of Piare Lal brother of the deceased shows that the affidavit of Piare Lal brother of the deceased shows that the nd was working as labour deceased was 34 years old and was working as labour deceased was 34 years old per annum. He also contractor and was earning Rs. 40,000/- per annum. He also contractor and was earning Rs. 40,000/ incapable of producing a child, alleged that the deceased incapable of producing a child, incapable of producing a child, marry and he adopted his son Gulzar therefore, he did not marry and he adopted his son Gulzar marry and he adopted his son Gulzar Singh in Baisakhi 2000 in accordance with Hindu rites and in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. petitioners also produced one school The petitioners also produced one school petitioners also produced one school certificate mark C allegedly is ued by Head Master, Geeta issued by Head Master, Geeta High School, Gheer in accordance with which Gulzar Singh High School, Gheer in accordance with which Gulzar Singh High School, Gheer in accordance with which Gulzar Singh student of 5th standard in that school. son of Mohan Lal was a student of 5th standard in that school. 11. The most material question The most material question The most material question that arises that arises that arises for for for any determination is whether the petitioners are entitled to any determination is whether the petitioners are entitled to After scanning the evidence on record I compensation or not. After scanning the evidence on record I After scanning the evidence on record I am of the opinion that the claim petition of petitioner No.1 am of the opinion that the claim petition of petitioner No.1 am of the opinion that the claim petition of petitioner No.1 Smt.Sardari Devi is not maintainable and petitioner No.2 is not Smt.Sardari Devi is not maintainable and petitioner No.2 is not Smt.Sardari Devi is not maintainable and petitioner No.2 is not Mohan Lal, therefore, both of proved to be the adopted son of Mohan Lal, therefore, both of proved to be the adopted son of compensation at all. them are not entitled to any compensation at all. 12. d a It is noteworthy that earlier Smt. Sardari Devi filed a It is noteworthy that earlier Smt. nsation on account of death of Mohan claim petition for compensation on account of death of Mohan nsation on account of death of Mohan Lal in the same very vehicular accident before Motor Accident same very vehicular accident before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala City. - The copy of the order dated 29- 3-2003 Ex. P4 shows that claim p tition was dismissed as claim petition was dismissed as v Kumar, Motor Accident withdrawn in the court of Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Motor Accident withdrawn in the court of Shri Sanje RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment (O&M) -5- Claims Tribunal, Ambala City without permission of the court City without permission of the court to file a fresh claim petition on the sam petition on the same cause of action. 13. urged that The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that The learned counsel for the petitioners has vi had filed an application for in fact Smt. Sardari Devi had filed an application for vi had filed an application for withdrawal of the claim petition with permission to file a fresh withdrawal of the claim petition with permission to file a fresh withdrawal of the claim petition with permission to file a fresh the petition but the Tribunal at Ambala City simply dismissed the petition but the Tribunal at Ambala City claim petition as withdrawn. The learned counsel for the withdrawn. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Kantibhal D. Patel Ahmedabad cited Kantibhal D. Patel Vs. Ahmedabad Corporation 1998(3) Civil Court Cases (Gujrat) 97, Municipal Corporation 1998(3) Civil Court Cases (Gujrat) 97, Corporation 1998(3) Civil Court Cases (Gujrat) 97, H. Lingappa & others 1982 Civil L. Shivakumaraswamy Vs. H. Lingappa & others 1982 Civil H. Lingappa & others 1982 Civil nd Hans Raj Akrot Vs. The State Court Cases Karnataka 583 and Hans Raj Akrot Vs. The State nd Hans Raj Akrot Vs. The State of H.P. through Collector 1989 Civil Court Cases H.P. 45 and of H.P. through Collector 1989 Civil Court Cases H.P. 45 and of H.P. through Collector 1989 Civil Court Cases H.P. 45 and to has vehemently argued that it was not open to the court to has vehemently argued that it was not open to the court grant withdrawal of the petition and refuse permission to file grant withdrawal of the petition and refuse permission to file grant withdrawal of the petition and refuse permission to file fresh petition. He has contend could either h petition. He has contended that the court could either The learned reject the entire prayer or allow the entire prayer. The learned reject the entire prayer or allow the entire Vijay Chopra counsel for the petitioners has also cited Mrs. Vijay Chopra counsel for the petitioners has also etc. Vs. Udham Singh etc. 1989 2 PLR Punjab & Haryana 36 1989-2 PLR Punjab & Haryana 36 and has argued that strict rules of Civil Procedure rules of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to proceedings before Tribunal, therefore, even if do not apply to proceedings before Tribunal, therefore, even if do not apply to proceedings before Tribunal, therefore, even if tition was filed without the permission to the present claim petition was filed without the permission to tition was filed without the permission to file a fresh claim petition on the same cause of action claim petition on the same cause of action maintainable. nevertheless the same is maintainable. 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to above y thoughtful consideration to the above r 23 arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Order 23 arguments of the learned counsel for the Procedure reads as under: Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: WITHDRAWAL OF SUIT OR ABANDONMENT OF A WITHDRAWAL OF SUIT OR ABANDONMENT OF A WITHDRAWAL OF SUIT OR ABANDONMENT OF A r the PART OF CLAIM (1) At any time after the PART OF CLAIM (1) At any tim institution of a suit the plaintiff may, as against institution of a suit the plaintiff may, as against institution of a suit the plaintiff may, as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim: abandon a part of his claim: other Provided that where the plaintiff is a minor or other Provided that where the plaintiff is a minor person to whom the provisions contained in person to whom the provisions contained in person to whom the provisions contained in RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment (O&M) -6- neither rules 1 to 14 of Order XXXII. extend, neither rules 1 to 14 of Orde shall be the suit not any part of the claim shall be the suit not any part of the claim abandoned without the leave of the court. abandoned without the leave of the (2) An application for leave under the proviso to An application for leave under the proviso to An application for leave under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall affidavit of rule (1) shall accompanied by affidavit of the next friend and also, if the minor or such the next friend and also, if the minor or such the next friend and also, if the minor or such other person is represented by a pleader, by a other person is represented by a pleader, by a other person is represented by a pleader, by a the effect that the certificate of a pleader to the effect that the certificate of a pleader to abandonment proposed is in his opinion, for the abandonment proposed is in his opinion, for the abandonment proposed is in his opinion, for the benefit of the minor or such other person. benefit of the minor (3) Where the Court is satisfied,: Where the Court is satisfied,:- (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal that a suit must fail by reason of some formal that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (b) that there are sufficient grounds for allowing are sufficient grounds for allowing suit for the the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the the plaintiff to institute a fresh subject matter of a suit or part of a claim. subject matter of a suit or part of a claim. the It may on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the It may on such terms as it thinks fit, grant plaintiff permission to withdraw from such suit laintiff permission to withdraw from such suit liberty to institute or such part of the claim with liberty to institute or such part of the claim with a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of such suit or such part of the claim. such suit or such part of the claim. (4) Where the plaintiff: Where the plaintiff:- (a) abandons any suit or part of claim - suit or part of claim under sub- rule (1), or (b) withdraws from suit or part of a claim withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the permission referred to in rule the permission referred to in sub-rule (3), he shall be liable for such costs as the Court shall be liable for such costs as the Court may award and shall be precluded from may award and shall be precluded from may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such instituting any fresh suit in respect of such instituting any fresh suit in respect of such matter of such part of the claim. subject-matter of such part of the claim. hicle Rules 1993 shows A perusal of the Haryana, Motor Vehicle Rules 1993 shows A perusal of the Haryana, Motor V the that as per Rule 220 provisions of Order 23 Rules 1 to 3, of the that as per Rule 220 provisions of Order 23 Rules 1 to 3, of RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment (O&M) -7- proceedings Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the before the Claims Tribunal. There is no dispute with the before the Claims Tribunal. There is no dispute with the before the Claims Tribunal. There is no dispute with the Vs. proposition of law laid down in Mrs. Vijay Chopra etc.. Vs. proposition of law laid down in Mrs. Vijay of Civil Udham Singh etc. (supra) that strict rules of the Code of Civil Udham Singh etc. (supra) that strict Procedure do not apply to the proceedings before the Claims Procedure do not apply to the proceedings before the Claims Procedure do not apply to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. However, in the instant case it is sp cifically ver, in the instant case it is specifically s, 1993 that the mentioned in the Haryana Motor Vehicle Rules, 1993 that the mentioned in the Haryana Motor Vehicle Rul provisions of Order 23 Rules 1 to applicable to the s 1 to 3 are applicable to the Claims Tribunal. So it was incumbent proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. So it was incumbent Claims Tribunal. So it was incumbent upon Smt. Sardari Devi claimant No withdrawal of the claimant No.l to seek withdrawal of the with liberty to file a fresh claim petition earlier claim petition with liberty to file a fresh claim petition with liberty to file a fresh claim petition the Claims Tribunal, Ambala. It is true that as per law from the Claims Tribunal, Ambala. It is true that as per law the Claims Tribunal, Ambala. It is true that as per law laid down in the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the laid down in the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the laid down in the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the ct the entire prayer or allow petitioners the court can either reject the entire prayer or allow petitioners the court can either reje the entire prayer and it is not open to the court to grant r and it is not open to the court to grant withdrawal of suit and refuse permission to file fresh suit. withdrawal of suit and refuse permission to file fresh suit. withdrawal of suit and refuse permission to file fresh suit. However in the instant case there is absolutely no mat rial on the instant case there is absolutely no material on ioner No.1 Smt. the file which could warrant that the petitioner No.1 Smt. the file which could warrant that the p Sardari Devi made & prayer se r earlier eeking withdrawal of her earlier claim petition with liberty to file a fresh claim petition on the file a fresh claim petition on the laimants have mentioned in their same cause of action. The claimants have mentioned in their laimants have mentioned in their claim petition that there were errors in the claim there were several errors in the claim Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala petition filed before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala as minor and claimant No.l was not City and claimant No.2 was minor and claimant No.l was not as minor and claimant No.l was not od health, therefore, they wore not in a position to keeping good health, therefore, they wore not in a position to od health, therefore, they wore not in a position to conduct that petition at Ambala. The claimants have nowhere tition at Ambala. The claimants have nowhere fact moved alleged in the present claim petition that they had in fact moved alleged in the present claim petition that they had in king withdrawal of the claim petition with an application seeking withdrawal of the claim petition with king withdrawal of the claim petition with liberty to institute a fresh claim p Further, sh claim petition at Karnal. Further, even copy of order Ex.P4 shows that for rder Ex.P4 shows that the learned, counsel for the claimants made a simple stat want to simple statement that he did not want to proceed with the petition and th as and the same be dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly the claim p tition filed by Smt. Sardari claim petition filed by Smt. Sardari RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment (O&M) -8- Devi was dismissed as withdrawn by Motor Accident Claims Devi was dismissed as withdrawn by Motor Accident Claims Devi was dismissed as withdrawn by Motor Accident Claims the claim petition of Smt. Sardari Tribunal, Ambala City. Once the claim petition of Smt. Sardari the claim petition of Smt. Sardari r similar Devi petitioner No.l was dismissed as withdrawn, her similar Devi petitioner No.l was dismissed as withdrawn, h claim petition against the same v ry respondents was not at all the same very respondents was not at all She was precluded from instituting any fresh maintainable. She was precluded from instituting any fresh She was precluded from instituting any fresh claim petition in respect of same subject Otherwise ame subject matter. Otherwise had a right also Smt.Sardari Devi being mother of the deceased had a right also Smt.Sardari Devi being mother of the ath of Mohan Lal and to claim compensation on account of death of Mohan Lal and to claim compensation on account of d since she died within six days of filing of the claim petition, since she died within six days of filing of the claim petition, since she died within six days of filing of the claim petition, are not entitled to any compensation. therefore, her legal heirs are not entitled to any compensation. 15. Singh to So far as the right of claimant No.2 Gulzar Singh to So far as the right of claimant No.2 Gulzar deceased claim compensation being adopted son of Mohan Lal deceased claim compensation being adopted son of Mohan Lal is concerned, it is pertinent to note that no documentary is concerned, it is pertinent to note that no documentary is concerned, it is pertinent to note that no documentary ingh evidence has been produced to this effect that Gulzar Singh evidence has been produced to this effect th The was adopted by Mohan Lal deceased in Baisakhi 2000. The was adopted by Mohan Lal deceased in Baisakhi Lal petitioners did not examine any other witness except Piare Lal petitioners did not examine any other witnes Lal deposed (PWl) the real father of Gulzar Singh. PW1 Piara Lal deposed (PWl) the real father of Gulzar Singh. in his cross-examination that an entry regarding adoption w as xamination that an entry regarding adoption was in their family Bahi as well as school record. He also made in their family Bahi as well as school record. He also in their family Bahi as well as school record. He also ate ration card deposed that his mother was having a separate ration card deposed that his mother was having a sepa from him which included names of Mohan Lal and Gulzar from him which included names of Mohan Lal and Gulzar from him which included names of Mohan Lal and Gulzar Singh. He stated that he could not produce the said ration card He stated that he could not produce the said ration card Even if the said ration card was lost the as it was lost. Even if the said ration card was lost the Even if the said ration card was lost the & Supplies petitioners could produce record from Food & Supplies petitioners could produce record from to prove that Gulzar singh was residing with department to prove that Gulzar singh was residing with to prove that Gulzar singh was residing with more the alleged Mohan Lal as his adopted son. Further-more the alleged Mohan Lal as his adopted son. Gulzar Singh family Bahi in which entry regarding adoption of Gulzar Singh family Bahi in which entry regarding adoption of by Mohan Lal was made was also not produced. So, the by Mohan Lal was made was also not produced. So, the by Mohan Lal was made was also not produced. So, the omission on the part of the petitioners to produce the record petitioners to produce the record relating to ration card and family Bahi raises an adverse relating to ration card and family Bahi raises an adverse relating to ration card and family Bahi raises an adverse No doubt the petitioners produced one inference against them. No doubt the petitioners produced one No doubt the petitioners produced one sued by the Head Master, Geeta certificate mark C allegedly issued by the Head Master, Geeta sued by the Head Master, Geeta High School, Gheer, in accordance with which Gulzar Singh heer, in accordance with which Gulzar Singh RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment (O&M) -9- was studying in 5th standard in that school but s/o Mohan Lal was studying in 5th standard in that school but was studying in 5th standard in that school but that certificate was not duly proved by summoning the record that certificate was not duly proved by summoning the record that certificate was not duly proved by summoning the record application form of admission of Gulzar of the school. The application form of admission of Gulzar application form of admission of Gulzar Singh was not produced to show that Mohan Lal had got Singh was not produced to show that Mohan Lal had got Singh was not produced to show that Mohan Lal had got e Gulzar Singh, admitted in the school as his adopted son. Since Gulzar Singh, admitted in the school as his adopted son. the certificate mark C was not duly proved therefore, no was not duly proved therefore, no petitioners reliance can be placed on it. Burden was upon the petitioners reliance can be placed on it. Burden was evidence that Gulzar to prove by cogent, concrete and definite evidence that Gulzar to prove by cogent, concrete and Singh was adopted by Mohan Lal deceased However, the self Lal deceased. However, the self Piare Lal itself is not sufficient to serving statement of PW1 Piare Lal itself is not sufficient to Piare Lal itself is not sufficient to prove the adoption of his son Gulzar Singh by Moh an Lal his son Gulzar Singh by Mohan Lal In other words there is no positive evidence to prove deceased. In other words there is no positive evidence to prove In other words there is no positive evidence to prove claimant No.2 being adopted son of Mohan that Gulzar Singh claimant No.2 being adopted son of Mohan claimant No.2 being adopted son of Mohan account of his death in Lal is entitled to any compensation on account of his death in Lal is entitled to any compensation on the above vehicular accident. This issue is decided against t he vehicular accident. This issue is decided against the petitioners.” 11. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal (MACT Karnal) dismissed the claim petition solely on the Tribunal (MACT Karnal) dismissed the claim petition solely on the Tribunal (MACT Karnal) dismissed the claim petition solely on the Tribunal (MACT Karnal) dismissed the claim petition solely on the ground that the claimant had previously filed a claim petition before the ground that the claimant had previously filed a claim petition before the ground that the claimant had previously filed a claim petition before the ground that the claimant had previously filed a claim petition before the obtaining explicit liberty MACT, Ambala, which was withdrawn without obtaining explicit liberty MACT, Ambala, which was withdrawn without MACT, Ambala, which was withdrawn without to file a fresh claim petition. This conclusion rests on the order dated to file a fresh claim petition. This conclusion rests on the order dated to file a fresh claim petition. This conclusion rests on the order dated to file a fresh claim petition. This conclusion rests on the order dated 29.03.2003 (Exhibit P-4), passed by the MACT, Ambala, 29.03.2003 which reads as passed by the MACT, Ambala, which reads as follows: “File taken up today on the application moved on behalf of the “File taken up today on the application moved on behalf of the “File taken up today on the application moved on behalf of the learned counsel for the claimant has made a claimant. The learned counsel for the claimant has made a learned counsel for the claimant has made a statement that he does not want to proceed with the petition statement that he does not want to proceed with the petition statement that he does not want to proceed with the petition and the same be dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, the and the same be dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, the and the same be dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, the claim petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The learned counsel claim petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The learned counsel claim petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The learned counsel ed. File be consigned after for the respondents be informed. File be consigned after for the respondents be inform compliance.” RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment (O&M) 12. However, upon a closer examination of the records, it becomes However, upon a closer examination of the records, it becomes However, upon a closer examination of the records, it becomes -10- evident that the claimant had specifically moved an application before the evident that the claimant had specifically moved an application before the evident that the claimant had specifically moved an application before the evident that the claimant had specifically moved an application before the MACT, Ambala, seeking withdrawal of the claim petition due to MACT, Ambala, seeking withdrawal of the claim petition due to MACT, Ambala, seeking withdrawal of the claim petition due to MACT, Ambala, seeking withdrawal of the claim petition due to drafting errors. In the application, the claimant explicitly substantial drafting errors. In the application, the claimant explicitly drafting errors. In the application, the claimant explicitly substantial stated that these errors could severely prejudice her interests. She also stated that these errors could severely prejudice her interests. She also stated that these errors could severely prejudice her interests. She also stated that these errors could severely prejudice her interests. She also sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh, sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh, sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh, sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh, ctively contest the case citing her inability to travel to Ambala and effectively contest the case citing her inability to travel to Ambala and effe citing her inability to travel to Ambala and effe due to her advanced age and health condition. due to her advanced age and health condition. due to her advanced age and health condition. 13. It is evident that the MACT, Ambala, failed to exercise judicial It is evident that the MACT, Ambala, failed to exercise judicial It is evident that the MACT, Ambala, failed to exercise judicial discretion in considering the claimant’s application and erroneously discretion in considering the claimant’s application and erroneously discretion in considering the claimant’s application and erroneously discretion in considering the claimant’s application and erroneously addressing the request dismissed the claim petition as withdrawn without addressing the request dismissed the claim petition as withdrawn without dismissed the claim petition as withdrawn without for liberty to file a fresh petition. for liberty to file a fresh petition. 14. In the present proceedings, the MACT, Karnal, recorded a In the present proceedings, the MACT, Karnal, recorded a In the present proceedings, the MACT, Karnal, recorded a categorical finding that the death of the deceased was caused by the use categorical finding that the death of the deceased was caused by the use categorical finding that the death of the deceased was caused by the use categorical finding that the death of the deceased was caused by the use 7751), driven by Satpal Singh. of the offending vehicle (HR-37-7751), driven by Satpal Singh. of the offending vehicle (HR 15. he MACT, Karnal, further exacerbated The MACT, Karnal, further exacerbated he MACT, Karnal, further exacerbated the the the issue by issue by issue by dismissing the fresh claim petition filed by the claimant on the procedural dismissing the fresh claim petition filed by the claimant on the procedural dismissing the fresh claim petition filed by the claimant on the procedural dismissing the fresh claim petition filed by the claimant on the procedural ground that the earlier petition had been withdrawn without permission to ground that the earlier petition had been withdrawn without permission to ground that the earlier petition had been withdrawn without permission to ground that the earlier petition had been withdrawn without permission to file afresh. file afresh. 16. - Such an approach by the MACT, Karnal, reflects a hyper- Such an approach by the MACT, Karnal, ref technical interpretation of procedural rules, which undermines the technical interpretation of procedural rules, which undermines the technical interpretation of procedural rules, which undermines the technical interpretation of procedural rules, which undermines the remedial purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Act is a remedial purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Act is a remedial purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Act is a remedial purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Act is a beneficial legislation designed to ensure that victims of motor vehicle beneficial legislation designed to ensure that victims of motor vehicle beneficial legislation designed to ensure that victims of motor vehicle beneficial legislation designed to ensure that victims of motor vehicle ust compensation promptly. accidents and their dependents receive just compensation promptly. accidents and their dependents receive j accidents and their dependents receive j Adopting a rigid procedural stance defeats the very objective of the Act. Adopting a rigid procedural stance defeats the very objective of the Act. Adopting a rigid procedural stance defeats the very objective of the Act. RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment (O&M) The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a consistent line of judgments, The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a consistent line of judgments, The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a consistent line of judgments, -11- has clarified that strict adherence to the procedural provisions of the Code has clarified that strict adherence to the procedural provisions of the Code has clarified that strict adherence to the procedural provisions of the Code has clarified that strict adherence to the procedural provisions of the Code re is not mandatory in proceedings before Motor of Civil Procedure is not mandatory in proceedings before Motor re is not mandatory in proceedings before Motor of Civil Procedu Accident Claims Tribunals. Accident Claims Tribunals. RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment (O&M) -12- 5. RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment (O&M) 6. -13- In sequel of the above, the hyper technical approach adopted he hyper-technical approach adopted by the MACT, Karnal, is contrary to the settled principles of law and the by the MACT, Karnal, is contrary to the settled principles of law and the by the MACT, Karnal, is contrary to the settled principles of law and the by the MACT, Karnal, is contrary to the settled principles of law and the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, the award of beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, the award of beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, the award of beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, the award of the MACT, Karnal, deserves to be set aside, and the claimant the MACT, Karnal, deserves to are held be set aside, and the claimants are held entitled to the compensation. entitled to the compensation. in FAO No.4301 of 2006 Akaljit FAO No.4301 of 2006, titled as “Akaljit Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others” held as under:- Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others “11. Ram Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Hon’ble Supreme Court [2022(4) Murti and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2022(4) Murti and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board held that the appellants therein to be granted the TAC 738] held that the appellants therein to be granted the held that the appellants therein to be granted the benefit of beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under benefit of beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under benefit of beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment (O&M) Chapter 11 of which Section 164 provides for payment of Chapter 11 of which Section 164 provides for payment of Chapter 11 of which Section 164 provides for payment of -14- compensation in the case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs compensation in the case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs compensation in the case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs. and in the case grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs. 12. This Court in FAO Mamta FAO-195-2006 titled as Mamta and Others Vs. Happy and Others n 29.05.2024, Happy and Others, decided on 29.05.2024, Motor Vehicle statute is a beneficial legislation, held that since Motor Vehicle statute is a beneficial legislation, Motor Vehicle statute is a beneficial legislation, the Judge should not go into the technicalities of the the Judge should not go into the technicalities of the the Judge should not go into the technicalities of the provisions, under which the application or petition is moved provisions, under which the application or petition is moved provisions, under which the application or petition is moved but should apply his judicial mind, as these are only the but should apply his judicial mind, as these are only the but should apply his judicial mind, as these are only the rregularities and not illegalities which cannot be cured. It has irregularities and not illegalities which cannot be cured. It has rregularities and not illegalities which cannot be cured. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the loss been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the loss been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the loss caused to the claimants or the relationship or to the victim of caused to the claimants or the relationship or to the victim of caused to the claimants or the relationship or to the victim of the limb cannot be compensated. Still the Court should make the limb cannot be compensated. Still the Court should make the limb cannot be compensated. Still the Court should make ort by exercising every effort by exercising ort by exercising its discretion empathetically. its discretion empathetically. its discretion empathetically. Further, Justice should actually be shown to be delivered by Further, Justice should actually be shown to be delivered by Further, Justice should actually be shown to be delivered by application of judicial mind with intelligence, prudence, care application of judicial mind with intelligence, prudence, care application of judicial mind with intelligence, prudence, care and caution and by showing empathy. The Court decision and caution and by showing empathy. The Court decision and caution and by showing empathy. The Court decision trengthen the trust and confidence of should be such that they strengthen the trust and confidence of trengthen the trust and confidence of public and litigants in judicial system and judiciary.” public and litigants in judicial system and judiciary 22.
Decision
In view of the above, the claimants/appellants are held entitled In view of the above, the claimants/appellants are held entitled In view of the above, the claimants/appellants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakh. to compen 23. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Supreme Court in Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State 2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, Transport Corporation the (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment (O&M) appellant- 9% per annum on the claimant is granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the -claimant is granted the interest @ -15- enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization. its realization. 24. The is directed to deposit is directed to deposit ong with interest with the the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the the enhanced amount of compensation al the enhanced amount of compensation al Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the amount of this judgment. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the amount of this judgment. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the amount of this judgment. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the amount of compensation along with of compensation along with of compensation along with interest interest interest . in equal shares. The The directed to furnish their bank accounts details to claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank accounts details to directed to furnish their bank accounts details to claimants/appellants are the Tribunal. the Tribunal. 25. 26. 27. Disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment