AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madhava Reddy, J.—In this appeal directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Kurnool in C. F. R. No. 1691/75 (un-registered Motor Vehicles O.P.) filed by the husband of the deceased, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the O.P. was properly presented?
The claimant filed the O.P. through his counsel. He was duly authorised by a Vakalat. The learned District Judge held that having regard to Section 110-A(l)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a mere Vakalat given by a party to a legal practitioner cannot clothe him with the right to act or present any papers on his behalf before the Tribunal without express permission from the Tribunal and as such, the presentation by the counsel cannot be deemed to be a valid presentation in the eye of law. He accordingly rejected the application.
Section 110-A(l)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act authorises presentation of an application for compensation by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. It may be stated at the outset that having regard to Rules 514, 515 and 520 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, in some courts, practice seems to have developed of insisting upon the claimants to file the application in person. These rules prior to their amendment in 1972 read as follows:
Rule 514. Every application for payment of compensation made u/s 110-A shall be made in Form CID, and shall be accompanied, by the fee prescribed therefor in Rule 533.
Rule 515. On receipt of an application under Rule 514, the Claims Tribunal may, examine the applicant on oath, and the substance of such examination, if any, shall be reduced to writing.
Rule 520. The Claims Tribunal may in its discretion, allow any party to appear before it through a legal practitioner.
It would be seen that rules 514 and 515 do not enjoin upon the claimants to file the applications in person. Rule 515 merely empowers the Tribunal to examine the applicant on oath on receipt of an application. The examination of the applicant immediately on presentation of the application is not mandatory. Rule 520 no doubt originally vested the Tribunal with the discretion to allow any party to appear before it through a legal practitioner. Now it reads as follows:
The Claims Tribunal shall allow any party to appear before it through a legal practitioner.
After the amendment of that rule effected in 1972, it is obligatory for the Tribunal to permit the claimants to appear through a legal practitioner. However, whether before or after the amendment, there is no specific provision requiring such applications to be presented in person by the claimants or prohibiting these applications from being presented through a legal practitioner. In these circumstances, the only question that requires to be considered in this regard is whether a legal practitioner could be deemed to be a person duly authorised to present an application for compensation. Under Order 3, Rule 1 CPC an application required or authorised by law to be made or done by a party in a Court, may. except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognised agent, or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf. A pleader appointed under Order 3, Rule 4 CPC is empowered to file applications on behalf of parties when a Vakalat, is executed in his favour. When a pleader is empowered to act on. behalf of a party by executing such a Vakalatnama and the same if filed into the Court, or Tribunal, he would be an ''agent duly authorised. The term ''agent duly authorised'' occurring in Section 110-A (l)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act must be understood in the wider context as a person authorised to act on behalf of the parties claiming compensation. When the purpose of appointing a pleader by executing a Vakalat is to appear and act, which includes presentation of petitions as envisaged by Order 3, Rule 4 C.P.C, there is no reason why a pleader so appointed by a claimant should not be deemed to be an ''agent duly authorised'' u/s 110-A (l)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this view of the matter, we bold that the presentation of a claim petition by a pleader appointed under a Vakalat was a proper presentation. The order of the Claims Tribunal under appeal is therefore set aside. The O.P. shall be numbered and disposed of on merits. This appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.