Piare Lal and Ors. Vs Satpal and Ors.

¶1

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

¶2

Brief facts of the case are that o n 13.05.2002 at about 8.00 p.m . Mohan Lal (since deceased) along with S mt. Shakuntla Devi was goin g on a sco o ter bearing registration No.P B -02R-4223 from Kala Amb t o Narainga r h. When they reached near A a mwala Pir Kala Amb road, on e truck bea r ing No.HR-37-7751 came fro m Naraingarh side and caused th e accident w ith their scooter. As a resul t , Mohan Lal received multipl e

¶3

RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment

¶4

(O&M)

¶5

-2-

¶6

simple a n d grievous injuries besides he a d injury and died on the spot . Smt. Sha k untla Devi, who was pillion rider on the same scooter als o received m ultiple injuries and under se m i-conscious condition wrongl y disclosed her name as Kamlesh and nam e of the deceased as Ram Kuma r to the po l ice. However, later on when, s he regained consciousness, sh e made a statement on 16.05.2002 that her n ame is Shakuntla Devi and tha t of decea s ed is Mohan Lal. The accide n t was caused due to rash an d negligent driving of driver of the truck N o. HR-37-7751. Respondent s No.2 and 3 are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, respectively . It has be e n averred that the deceased w as 34 years of age and he wa s working a s mason-cum-labour contracto r and was earning 40,000/- pe r annum. I t has been averred that the d e ceased could not marry due t o medical r e asons. The deceased had adop t ed Gulzar Singh claimant No.2 , who hap p ened to be son of elder brot h er of the deceased. It is als o submitte d that earlier the claimant No.1 h ad filed a claim petition in th e MACT, A mbala City, but due to several e rrors in the said petition and th e fact that the claimant No.2-Gulzar Sin g h was minor, the said petitio n was with d rawn.

¶7

Upon notice of the claim petit i on, respondents No.1 and 2 di d not appe a r despite service and they were proceeded against ex parte vid e order dat e d 29.07.2004. 4. Respondent No.3 has contest e d the claim petition and ha s submitte d that the claim petition is not m a intainable because earlier clai m petition f i led at Amabla was withdrawn w ithout permission of the court.

¶8

RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment

¶9

(O&M)

¶10

-3- 5. From the pleadings of the p a rties, the Tribunal framed th e followin g issues:-

¶11

Whether the accident wa s caused due to involvement o f truck registration No.HR 3 7-7751 being driven by Satpa l respondent No.1 causing d eath of Mohan Lal as alleged ? OPP

¶12

Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive an y compensation amount on account of death of decease d Mohan Lal in the accide n t. If so, how much and fro m who? OPP

¶13

Whether the insured has v i olated any terms and condition s of the insurance policy, a s alleged. If so to what effect ? OPR3

¶14

Relief.

¶15

After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidenc e on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

¶16

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

¶17

The learned counsel for the cl a imants-appellants contends tha t the claim petition was solely dismissed o n the ground that previous clai m petition E xhibit P-4, filed before the M ACT, Ambala, was withdraw n without l iberty to file fresh petition o n the same cause of action . Therefor e , he prayed that the present app e al be allowed.

¶18

RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment

¶19

(O&M)

¶20

-4-

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused th e whole re c ord of this case.

¶22

The relevant portion of the awa r d is reproduced as under: “10. It is worth-noting tha t Smt. Sardari Devi mother an d Gulzar Singh, adopted son of deceased Mohan Lal filed thi s claim petition before Motor A c cident Claims Tribunal, Karna l on 17-3-2003. Unfortunately S mt. Sardari Davi died on 26-3 - 2003 itself and therefore, her l egal heirs were impleaded. Th e affidavit of Piare Lal brother of the deceased shows that th e deceased was 34 years old and was working as labou r contractor and was earning R s . 40,000/- per annum. He als o alleged that the deceased in c apable of producing a child, therefore, he did not marry a nd he adopted his son Gulza r Singh in Baisakhi 2000 in ac c ordance with Hindu rites an d ceremonies. The petitioner s also produced one schoo l certificate mark C allegedly i ssued by Head Master, Geet a High School, Gheer in accor d ance with which Gulzar Sing h son of Mohan Lal was a studen t of 5th standard in that school. 11. The most materia l question that arises fo r determination is whether the petitioners are entitled to an y compensation or not. After sc a nning the evidence on record I am of the opinion that the cl a im petition of petitioner No. 1 Smt.Sardari Devi is not mainta i nable and petitioner No.2 is no t proved to be the adopted son of Mohan Lal, therefore, both o f them are not entitled to any co m pensation at all. 12. It is noteworthy that e arlier Smt. Sardari Devi filed a claim petition for compensatio n on account of death of Moha n Lal in the same very vehicular accident before Motor Acciden t Claims Tribunal, Ambala City. The copy of the order dated 29 - 3-2003 Ex. P4 shows that cl a im petition was dismissed a s withdrawn in the court of Shri S anjeev Kumar, Motor Acciden t

¶23

RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment

¶24

(O&M)

¶25

-5Claims Tribunal, Ambala City without permission of the cour t to file a fresh claim petition on the same cause of action. 13. The learned counsel fo r the petitioners has urged tha t in fact Smt. Sardari Devi had filed an application fo r withdrawal of the claim petitio n with permission to file a fres h petition but the Tribunal at A m bala City simply dismissed th e claim petition as withdrawn. The learned counsel for th e petitioner has cited Kantib h al D. Patel Vs. Ahmedaba d Municipal Corporation 1998(3 ) Civil Court Cases (Gujrat) 97, L. Shivakumaraswamy Vs. H. Lingappa & others 1982 Civi l Court Cases Karnataka 583 a n d Hans Raj Akrot Vs. The Stat e of H.P. through Collector 198 9 Civil Court Cases H.P. 45 an d has vehemently argued that i t was not open to the court t o grant withdrawal of the petiti o n and refuse permission to fil e fresh petition. He has conten d ed that the court could eithe r reject the entire prayer or allo w the entire prayer. The learne d counsel for the petitioners ha s also cited Mrs. Vijay Chopr a etc. Vs. Udham Singh etc. 198 9 -2 PLR Punjab & Haryana 3 6 and has argued that strict rule s of the Code of Civil Procedur e do not apply to proceedings b ef ore Tribunal, therefore, even i f the present claim petition was filed without the permission t o file a fresh claim petition o n the same cause of actio n nevertheless the same is maint a inable. 14. I have given my thou g htful consideration to the abov e arguments of the learned coun s el for the petitioners. Order 2 3 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Pro c edure reads as under:

¶26

WITHDRAWAL OF S U IT OR ABANDONMENT OF A PART OF CL A IM (1) At any time after th e institution of a s uit the plaintiff may, as agains t all or any of th e defendants abandon his suit o r abandon a part of his claim:

¶27

Provided that where t he plaintiff is a minor or othe r person to who m the provisions contained i n

¶28

RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment

¶29

(O&M)

¶30

-6rules 1 to 14 of Order XXXII. extend, neithe r the suit not a n y part of the claim shall b e abandoned wit h out the leave of the court. (2) An application f or leave under the proviso t o sub-rule (1) sh a ll accompanied by affidavit o f the next friend and also, if the minor or suc h other person is represented by a pleader, by a certificate of a pleader to the effect that th e abandonment p r oposed is in his opinion, for th e benefit of the m i nor or such other person.

¶31

Where the Cou r t is satisfied,:-

¶32

that a suit mus t fail by reason of some forma l defect, or

¶33

(b) that there are s ufficient grounds for allowin g the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for th e subject matter of a suit or part of a claim. It may on such terms as it thinks fit, grant th e plaintiff permis s ion to withdraw from such sui t or such part of t he claim with liberty to institut e a fresh suit in r espect of the subject matter o f such suit or suc h part of the claim.

¶34

(4) Where the plaintiff:-

¶35

(a) abandons any s uit or part of claim under sub - rule (1), or

¶36

(b) withdraws fro m a suit or part of a clai m without the pe r mission referred to in sub-rul e (3),

¶37

he shall be lia b le for such costs as the Cour t may award a n d shall be precluded fro m instituting any fresh suit in respect of suc h subject-matter of such part of the claim.

¶38

A perusal of the Haryana, M o tor Vehicle Rules 1993 show s that as per Rule 220 provision s of Order 23 Rules 1 to 3, of th e

¶39

RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment

¶40

(O&M)

¶41

-7Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceeding s before the Claims Tribunal. There is no dispute with th e proposition of law laid down in Mrs. Vijay Chopra etc.. Vs. Udham Singh etc. (supra) that strict rules of the Code of Civi l Procedure do not apply to the proceedings before the Claim s Tribunal. However, in the i nstant case it is specificall y mentioned in the Haryana Mo t or Vehicle Rules, 1993 that th e provisions of Order 23 Rule s 1 to 3 are applicable to th e proceedings before the Claim s Tribunal. So it was incumben t upon Smt. Sardari Devi claima n t No.l to seek withdrawal of th e earlier claim petition with libe r ty to file a fresh claim petitio n from the Claims Tribunal, Ambala. It is true that as per la w laid down in the rulings cited by the learned counsel for th e petitioners the court can either reject the entire prayer or allo w the entire prayer and it is not open to the court to gran t withdrawal of suit and refus e permission to file fresh suit. However in the instant case th e re is absolutely no material o n the file which could warrant that the petitioner No.1 Smt. Sardari Devi made & prayer s e eking withdrawal of her earlie r claim petition with liberty to fi le a fresh claim petition on th e same cause of action. The cl a imants have mentioned in thei r claim petition that there wer e several errors in the clai m petition filed before Motor Ac c ident Claims Tribunal, Ambal a City and claimant No.2 was minor and claimant No.l was no t keeping good health, therefore , they wore not in a position t o conduct that petition at Amba l a. The claimants have nowher e alleged in the present claim pe t ition that they had in fact move d an application seeking withdr a wal of the claim petition wit h liberty to institute a fresh clai m petition at Karnal. Further, even copy of order Ex.P4 sho w s that the learned, counsel fo r the claimants made a simple s t atement that he did not want t o proceed with the petition a n d the same be dismissed a s withdrawn. Accordingly the cl a im petition filed by Smt. Sardar i

¶42

RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment

¶43

(O&M)

¶44

-8Devi was dismissed as withdr a wn by Motor Accident Claim s Tribunal, Ambala City. Once t h e claim petition of Smt. Sardar i Devi petitioner No.l was dism i ssed as withdrawn, her simila r claim petition against the sam e very respondents was not at al l maintainable. She was precl u ded from instituting any fres h claim petition in respect of s a me subject matter. Otherwis e also Smt.Sardari Devi being m o ther of the deceased had a righ t to claim compensation on acc o unt of death of Mohan Lal an d since she died within six day s of filing of the claim petition, therefore, her legal heirs are n o t entitled to any compensation. 15. So far as the right o f claimant No.2 Gulzar Singh t o claim compensation being ado p ted son of Mohan Lal decease d is concerned, it is pertinent to note that no documentar y evidence has been produced t o this effect that Gulzar Sing h was adopted by Mohan Lal d e ceased in Baisakhi 2000. Th e petitioners did not examine an y other witness except Piare La l (PWl) the real father of Gulza r Singh. PW1 Piara Lal depose d in his cross-examination that a n entry regarding adoption wa s made in their family Bahi as w ell as school record. He als o deposed that his mother was having a separate ration car d from him which included na m es of Mohan Lal and Gulza r Singh. He stated that he could n ot produce the said ration car d as it was lost. Even if the s aid ration card was lost th e petitioners could produce r e cord from Food & Supplie s department to prove that G u lzar singh was residing wit h Mohan Lal as his adopted s o n. Further-more the allege d family Bahi in which entry reg a rding adoption of Gulzar Sing h by Mohan Lal was made w a s also not produced. So, th e omission on the part of the p e titioners to produce the recor d relating to ration card and f amily Bahi raises an advers e inference against them. No do u bt the petitioners produced on e certificate mark C allegedly is s ued by the Head Master, Geet a High School, Gheer, in accor d ance with which Gulzar Sing h

¶45

RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment

¶46

(O&M)

¶47

-9s/o Mohan Lal was studying in 5th standard in that school bu t that certificate was not duly p r oved by summoning the recor d of the school. The applicatio n form of admission of Gulza r Singh was not produced to s how that Mohan Lal had go t Gulzar Singh, admitted in the school as his adopted son. Sinc e the certificate mark C was n ot duly proved therefore, n o reliance can be placed on it. B urden was upon the petitioner s to prove by cogent, concrete a n d definite evidence that Gulza r Singh was adopted by Mohan L al deceased. However, the sel f serving statement of PW1 Pia r e Lal itself is not sufficient t o prove the adoption of his so n Gulzar Singh by Mohan La l deceased. In other words ther e is no positive evidence to prov e that Gulzar Singh claimant N o .2 being adopted son of Moha n Lal is entitled to any compens a tion on account of his death i n the above vehicular accident. T his issue is decided against th e petitioners.”

¶48

A perusal of the impugned a ward reveals that the learne d Tribunal (MACT Karnal) dismissed th e claim petition solely on th e ground t h at the claimant had previously filed a claim petition before th e MACT, A mbala, which was withdrawn w ithout obtaining explicit libert y to file a fresh claim petition. This con c lusion rests on the order date d 29.03.20 0 3 (Exhibit P-4), passed by the M ACT, Ambala, which reads a s follows:

¶49

“File taken up today on the ap p lication moved on behalf of th e claimant. The learned couns e l for the claimant has made a statement that he does not w a nt to proceed with the petitio n and the same be dismissed a s withdrawn. Accordingly, th e claim petition is dismissed as w ithdrawn. The learned counse l for the respondents be infor m ed. File be consigned afte r compliance.”

¶50

RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment

¶51

(O&M)

¶52

-10- 12. However, upon a closer exami n ation of the records, it become s evident t h at the claimant had specifically moved an application before th e MACT, A mbala, seeking withdrawal of the claim petition due t o substanti a l drafting errors. In the appl i cation, the claimant explicitl y stated th a t these errors could severely p rejudice her interests. She als o sought p e rmission to withdraw the peti t ion with liberty to file afresh , citing he r inability to travel to Ambala a nd effectively contest the cas e due to he r advanced age and health condi t ion.

¶53

It is evident that the MACT, A m bala, failed to exercise judicia l discretio n in considering the claimant ’ s application and erroneousl y dismisse d the claim petition as withdraw n without addressing the reques t for libert y to file a fresh petition. 14. In the present proceedings, t h e MACT, Karnal, recorded a categoric a l finding that the death of the d eceased was caused by the us e of the off e nding vehicle (HR-37-7751), d r iven by Satpal Singh. 15. The MACT, Karnal, furth e r exacerbated the issue b y dismissin g the fresh claim petition filed by the claimant on the procedura l ground t h at the earlier petition had been w ithdrawn without permission t o file afres h .

¶54

Such an approach by the M A CT, Karnal, reflects a hyper - technical interpretation of procedural rules, which undermines th e remedial purpose of the Motor Vehi c les Act, 1988. The Act is a beneficia l legislation designed to ensur e that victims of motor vehicl e accidents and their dependents receiv e just compensation promptly . Adopting a rigid procedural stance defeat s the very objective of the Act.

¶55

RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment

¶56

(O&M)

¶57

-11- The Hon’ble Supreme Court, i n a consistent line of judgments , has clarif i ed that strict adherence to the p r ocedural provisions of the Cod e of Civil Procedure is not mandatory in proceedings before Moto r Accident Claims Tribunals.

¶58

RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment

(O&M)

-12-

RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment

(O&M)

-13-

In sequel of the above, the h y per-technical approach adopte d by the M A CT, Karnal, is contrary to the settled principles of law and th e beneficia l nature of the Motor Vehicles A ct. Consequently, the award o f the MA C T, Karnal, deserves to be set a s ide, and the claimants are hel d entitled t o the compensation.

¶67

in FAO No.4301 of 2006 , titled as “ Akaljit Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others ” held as under:-

¶68

“ 11. Hon’ble Supre m e Court in the case of Ram Murti and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2022(4)

¶69

TAC 738] held that the appe l lants therein to be granted th e benefit of beneficial provision e nacted by the Parliament unde r

¶70

RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment

¶71

(O&M)

¶72

-14Chapter 11 of which Section 164 provides for payment o f compensation in the case of d e ath in the amount of Rs.5 lakh s and in the case grievous hurt o f Rs.2.5 lakhs. 12. This Court in FAO-195-2006 titled as Mamta and Others Vs. Happy and Others , decided on 29.05.2024, held that since Motor Vehicle statute is a beneficial legislation, the Judge should not go i nto the technicalities of th e provisions, under which the a p plication or petition is move d but should apply his judicia l mind, as these are only th e irregularities and not illegaliti e s which cannot be cured. It ha s been observed by the Hon’bl e Supreme Court that the los s caused to the claimants or the relationship or to the victim o f the limb cannot be compensat e d. Still the Court should mak e every effort by exercising its discretion empathetically. Further, Justice should actual l y be shown to be delivered b y application of judicial mind w ith intelligence, prudence, car e and caution and by showing empathy. The Court decisio n should be such that they stren g then the trust and confidence o f public and litigants in judicial s ystem and judiciary .” 22. In view of the above, the clai m ants/appellants are held entitle d to compe n sation to the tune of Rs.5 lakh.

¶73

So far as the interest part is c oncerned, as held by Hon’bl e Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, th e

¶74

RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment

¶75

(O&M)

¶76

-15-

¶77

appellant - claimant is granted the inter e st @ 9% per annum on th e enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date o f its realiz a tion.

¶78

The is directed to deposi t the enha n ced amount of compensatio n along with interest with th e Tribunal w ithin a period of two months f rom the date of receipt of cop y of this ju d gment. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the amoun t of com p ensation along with inter e st in equal shares. Th e claimants/appellants are directed to furni s h their bank accounts details t o the Tribu n al.

¶79

¶80

Disposed of accordingly.

¶81

Pending application(s), if any, a lso stand disposed of.

¶82

RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment

Piare Lal and Ors. v. Satpal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piare Lal and Ors. v. Satpal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jarnail Singh Vs Sultan Saini and Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Lalli Devi and Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ramotar and Ors.

Satbir Vs Subhash and Ors.

Raj Rani and Ors. Vs Sarjan Singh and Anr.

Gurdeep Kaur and Anr. Vs Anjgrej Singh and Ors.