Amriti Devi and Others vs Kamal Kumar and Another

Bhawani Singh, J.—Briefly, the facts of this case are in a yarrow compass; the husband of Petitioner No. 1, Amriti Devi, was a driver with Bus No. HPK-3333 owned by Respondent No. 1. While at Dalhousie during winter season, it did not start due to cold with the result that the deceased burnt some material underneath the same in order to start the vehicle. During this process, the deceased caught fire and sustained injuries. He was treated at Govt. Hospital, Dalhousie and thereafter shifted to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chandigarh, where he ultimately expired.

The claimants, the widow and the minor children (five in number), moved a petition claiming compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharamshala. Sh. R.K. Sharma learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in this -Court, submits that when this case was fixed for reconciliation, it came out that the Tribunal at Dharamshala had no jurisdiction to decide the matter since by that time a separate Tribunal for Chamba had been established. As a result of this, the Tribunal returned the claim petition with a separate endorsement under Order 7 Rule 10(2) of the CPC whereupon the claim petition was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chamba.

The Tribunal at Chamber rejected the same on the ground that the return of the claim petition by the Tribunal at Dharam shala was notoriety in accordance with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10(2) of CPC since it requires an endorsement to be made right on the claim petition. It is his action of the Tribunal at Chamba that lies been challenged by the layman fey way of this appd

After hearing Sh. R.K. Sharma for the claimants and S/Sh. Devinder Gupta and C.B. Barowalia for Respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively, I am clearly of the opinion that the Tribunal at Chamba has not dealt with the matter correctly and in accordance with law. Firstly, the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10(2) CPC should not have been interpreted so rigidly more especially in view of separate endorsement already made by the Tribunal at Dharamshala. Secondly, these provisions are not applicable to the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal since State of Himachal Pradesh has framed its own rules of procedure known as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1960. Rule 20 thereof is relevant which is reproduced as under:

CPC to apply in certain cases. The following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall so far as may be apply to proceedings before the Claims Tribunals, namely, Order V: rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30; Order IX, Order XIII, Rules 3 to 10; Order XVI, Rules 2 to 21; Order XVII; and Order XXIII, rules 1 to 3.

It appears that this rule was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal which resulted not only in the miscarriage of justice but also harassment to the claimants who are from very poor strata of society with practically nothing to depend upon. The Tribunals should not, in such like cases, take a very hyper-technical I view of the matters of procedure is nee they, sometimes. Cause immense harm, inconvenience and prejudice to the claimants for nothing. Approach has always to be to do substantial jounce to the parties which are the sole concern of the courts of justice.

The result of the aforesaid discussion is that this appeal is allowed. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chamba, is directed to register the claim petition of the claimants at its original number and proceed to decide the same swiftly. It is desirable that, this matter is decided by the Tribunal within a period of four months from today. The Registry is directed to transmit all relevant documents to the Tribunal, Chamba, immediately. The parties may appear before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chamba, on 27-12-1989.