The main legal point established is the liberal interpretation of the law to allow claim petitions to be filed through authorized agents, as permitted by Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

HARI NATH TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from the judgment and decree or award dated 27. 11. 1993 in MVC No. 551 of 1986 by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal No. 3, Mangalore, whereby the tribunal has dismissed the petitioner's claim petition on the ground that it is not maintainable.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in nutshell are that a motor accident did take place on 16. 4. 1986 at about 3. 15 p. m. on National highway No. 17 near Katapady while the deceased, namely, husband of the claimant (K. G. Muralidharan Nair) was riding on motor cycle bearing No. GDG 9493 and bus bearing registration No. MRL 4676, according to the claimant's case, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner came and collided with the motor cycle. According to the claimant, K. G. Muralidharan Nair died on account of the accident. The claimant-appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 6,50,000 as compensation.

( 3 ) AGAINST respondent Nos. 1 and 3, the case remained ex pane and it was contested by the insurance company, respondent no. 2 before the Tribunal. A technical plea was, no doubt, raised that the claimants not having signed, verified or filed the application, instead it appears to have been got signed by Mr. P. J. Karkera, Advocate/ power of Attorney Holder and filed by him, was liable to be dismissed in limine as the Power of Attorney Holder could not either sign, verify or present the application. The respondent No. 2 also disputed the allegation that the accident did take place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus by bus driver. The respondent no. 2 contended that the accident was due to negligent act of K. G. Muralidharan nair, the deceased.

( 4 ) ON the basis of pleadings of the parties, tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the alleged motor accident on 16. 4. 1986 was due to rash and negligent driving of the bus No. MRL 4676 by respondent No. 3? (2) Whether the deceased Muralidharan nair died as a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident? (3) Whether this petition as brought by mr. P. J. Karkera is maintainable? (4) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation and, if so, to what amount? (5) What reliefs, if any, the parties are entitled to?

( 5 ) THE Tribunal held that so far as issue no. 1 is concerned, it has been established that the motor accident in question did take place on 16. 4. 1986 on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus No. MRL 4676 by the respondent No. 3. After having recorded these findings, the Tribunal answered issue Nos. 3 and 4 and it held that petitioner is not entitled to any compensation as the claim petition has been filed and presented and signed by Mr. P. J. Karkera as Power of Attorney Holder as well as an Advocate. Having recorded these findings against the claimants with reference to issue Nos. 3 and 4, the Tribunal, mangalore, dismissed the petition.

( 6 ) FEELING aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal referred to above, the claimants have come up in appeal before us.

( 7 ) SO far as issue Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, nobody has challenged and the insurance company has got no right to challenge the cause of action. Those findings, as such, are final and binding on the parties.

( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal acted illegally in dismissing the petition as not maintainable. The learned counsel submitted firstly that the petition could be made either by the applicant herself or through some person authorised or through her Advocate under the provisions of the Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act and there was no defect either in verification or in moving or in making of the application and the court below acted illegally in rejecting it. The learned counsel further contended that even if for a moment there would have been any defect of the nature as to signing or verification of the pleadings, the defect was not such as could not be cured, if it was a defect either

Click Here to Read the rest of this document