ORDER :- Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

2. In the instant case the petitioner, the applicant of a claim case arose out of motor accident whereby her son faced death has assailed the order dated 10th March, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, 6th Court at Alipore having determination to adjudicate the Motor Accident Claim Case sitting as a Tribunal in MAC Case No. 50 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the application praying for withdrawal of the claim case with liberty to sue afresh was rejected save and except the order allowing to withdraw the suit. This order is under challenge herein on the ground that there is a total perversity of the findings of the learned Court below in view of the fact that when the Court himself has considered that there was a defect in quoting the bus number of the offending vehicle owned by the opposite party, the Calcutta Tramways Company, the learned Court below ought to have allowed such application.

3. This application has been opposed by the opposite party, the said Tramways Company by contending, inter alia, that in the application filed by the petitioner in the Court below there was no whisper about the defect for which leave was sought for to file afresh on withdrawal of the claim application. It has been further contended referring the Order 23, Rule 1 sub-rule (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure that the learned Court below by a reasoned finding reached to the conclusion that there was no formal defect and no sufficient ground to grant such leave to the petitioner to file a fresh suit.

4. The learned Advocate for the opposite party further has submitted that once the amendment application praying amendment of the number of offending vehicle was not pressed, the petitioner had no right to withdraw the suit with a liberty to file afresh. In support of such proposition a judgment of Mysore High Court referred to passed in the case V. Narayanappa v. Narayanappa, reported in AIR 1971 Mysore 334 has been cited. The learned Advocate for the opposite party further relied upon a judgment passed in the case Rani Harshamukhi Dassi v. Sarat Chandra Ata, reported in (1927) 32 CWN 1244 to contend that until and unless there is a finding of the Court below that there is a formal defect no leave to file afresh could be granted.

5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules thereof providing for the relief in the nature of compensation in the event of death by motor accident or physical disablement due to such accident, are within the social welfare domain and the regours of technicalities have no applicability in such type of proceeding. The learned Advocate has submitted that nicety of a civil or criminal case has no scope in adjudicating the claim cases under Motor Vehicles Act. Reliance has been placed to the Judgment passed in the case Renubala Das v. Bani Chakraborty, Reported in 1990 (1) Transport and Accident Cases 151. The learned Advocate for the petitioner also has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case Sohanlal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, reported in 1996 (2) TAC 733 : (AIR 1996 SC 2627) (SC) to contend that right to claim compensation should not be defeated on technical ground. It has been further contended that in dealing with the claim case arising out of motor accident the Court should take a liberal approach by referring the judgment State of Maharashtra v. Kanchanmala Bijay Singh Shirke, reported in 1996 (1) ACC 109 (SC) : AIR 1995 SC 2499.

6. Having regard to the contentions of the learned Advocates appearing in the matter, the issue now to be decided.

7. From the impugned order it appears that the learned Court below considered the aspect that when the claim petition was filed, the offending vehicle's registration number was mentioned as WB-04/9410 whereas in the charge-sheet as filed by the police with reference to the said FIR culminated to Tiljala Police Sta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document