Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.RAMACHANDRA RAJU
A.M.Lakshmamma - Appellant
Versus
K.M.Sheriff - Respondent
Decided On : 08-22-69
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110-A - AMENDMENT OF CLAIM PETITION - LIMITATION - INTERESTS OF JUSTICE - PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 1 RULE 10 - APPLICABILITY - SUMMARY PROCEDURE - DISCRETION OF TRIBUNAL - POWER TO ALLOW AMENDMENT - SUFFICIENT CAUSE - DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION - CONDONATION OF DELAY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, alleging that their husband/father died in a motor accident involving three vehicles. The accident occurred on 15-6-1967. The claim petition was initially filed against the owner and the insurance company of one of the vehicles, APD 1491. Later, the petitioners sought to amend the claim petition to implead the Chairman, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, the owner of the bus APZ 3855, as a respondent. The Tribunal dismissed the petition, holding that the proposed amendment would introduce a new cause of action and that the claim against the third respondent was time-barred.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act is free to follow any procedure which it considers expedient in the interests of justice provided there is no prohibition in the rules framed under the Act and the procedure followed is orderly and consistent with the rules of natural justice and does not contravene the positive provisions of law. The court further held that the Tribunal has the power to entertain a claim application even after the expiry of the period of 60 days from the date of the occurrence of the accident if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.
Issues: 1. Whether the Claims Tribunal can follow the procedure embodied under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. for substitution of parties. 2. Whether the Tribunal can entertain a claim application even after the expiry of the period of 60 days from the date of the occurrence of the accident. 3. Whether the amendment of the claim petition should be allowed in the interests of justice.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act is free to follow any procedure which it considers expedient in the interests of justice provided there is no prohibition in the rules framed under the Act and the procedure followed is orderly and consistent with the rules of natural justice and does not contravene the positive provisions of law. 2. The Tribunal has the power to entertain a claim application even after the expiry of the period of 60 days from the date of the occurrence of the accident if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. 3. In the present case, the petitioners were justified in seeking to amend the claim petition to implead the Chairman, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, as a respondent, as they only came to know about the negligence of the driver of the bus APZ 3855 after the judgment of the Sessions Judge. Therefore, the amendment of the claim petition should have been allowed by the Tribunal in the interests of justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the civil revision petition and ordered the amendment of the claim petition as prayed for by the petitioners.
( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision "petition arises out of a petition filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal (District Judge) Cuddapah. The petition was filed by the wife and two children of one Subba Reddy, alleging that he died in a motor accident that occurred at 3-15 A. M. on 15-6-67. The motor vehicles involved in the accident are two lorries APD 1491 and APC 2296 and a bus APZ 3855 The Bus APZ 3855 belonged to the andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. According to the allegations made in the petition the deceased on the fateful night was travelling in the bus APZ 3855 and on the way the bus had to be stopped on account of some mechanical trouble and when it was kept on the road, the deceased Subba Reddy got down from the bus and slept on the road behind the bus; that at that time a lorry APC 2296 going towards Cuddapah came there and stopped and the driver of the Bus APZ 3855 was taking insulator tape from the driver of the lorry APC 2296 and at that time the lorry APD 1491 belonging to the first respondent in the lower court came from the opposite direction and dashed against the bus APZ 3855 when it was pushed back and ran over the deceased and on account of this the deceased received injuries and later died.
( 2 ) ORIGINALLY the claim petition was filed only against the owner and the Insurance Company with which the lorry APD 1491 was insured on the ground that the accident occurred on account of the negligent driving of that lorry. The police filed a criminal case against the drivers of all the three vehicles. The trial court acquitted the drivers of the vehicles APZ 3855 and APC 2295 and convicted the driver of the lorry APD 1491. On appeal the 2nd Additional sessions Judge, Cuddapah, found that the death of tne deceased was more due to the negligence of the driver of the Bus APZ 3855.
( 3 ) AFTER the disposal of the Criminal appeal in the sessions Court, the chairman A. P. State Road Transport Corporation was added as a third respondent in the claim patition on a petition filed for that purpose mentioning the fact that the Sessions Judge found that the accident was also due to the negligence of the driver of Bus APZ 3855. The present petition in question was filed before the Tribunal to make the consequential amendments in the body of the petition for claiming compensation against the third respondent also; The Tribunal dismissed the petition holding that the proposed amendment would introduce a new cause of action and that on the date the petition wa. s filed lor amendment the claim against the third respondent was time barred and also the petition filed under Order 6 rule 17 C. P. C. is not maintainable as the C. P. C. as a whole is not made applicable to the proceedings under the Act. Aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal this civil revision petition has been filed.
( 4 ) UNDER Sub-Section (2) of Section 110-C of the Act, it was provided that the claims Tribunal should have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed. It was also provided under sub-Sec (l) of Sec, 110-C that in holding an enquiry, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit; Admittedly apart from what was provided under Sub-Section (2) of Section 110-C of the act, no rules are framed making applicable to the enquiries before the Tribunal any other particular provisions of the C. P. C. In his connection it is necessary to Consider a decision of the Punjab High Court in NEW INSURANCE Co. , LTD , NEW delhi AND ANOTHER Vs. PUNJAB ROADWAYS, AMBALA city AND OTHERS (1), In that decision a question has arisen whether the Motor Claims Tr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
