Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
T. C. DAS, J.
Maharani Dey and others -Appellant
Versus
Debabrata Bardhan and another -Respondent
Civil Revn. No. 13 of 1979
Decided On : 03-12-1982
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110A - SUBSTITUTION OF LEGAL HEIRS - CAUSE OF ACTION SURVIVES - POWER OF TRIBUNAL TO ALLOW SUBSTITUTION - INHERENT JURISDICTION - C.P.C. ORDER 22 - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, Rebati Mohan Dey, was injured in a motor accident and his legs had to be amputated. He filed a claim petition for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). During the pendency of the claim petition, Rebati Mohan Dey died, and the petitioners, his legal heirs, applied for substitution of their names in place of the deceased claimant. The MACT rejected their application on the ground that the action brought by Rebati Mohan was purely personal and the cause of action did not survive on his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the cause of action in a claim petition before the MACT survives to the heirs of the deceased claimant and that the MACT has the power to allow substitution of the legal heirs as claimants. The court also held that Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is applicable to proceedings before the MACT and that the MACT has inherent jurisdiction to allow substitution of parties.
Issues: 1. Whether the cause of action in a claim petition before the MACT survives to the heirs of the deceased claimant? 2. Whether the MACT has the power to allow substitution of the legal heirs as claimants? 3. Whether Order 22 of the CPC is applicable to proceedings before the MACT?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the cause of action in a claim petition before the MACT survives to the heirs of the deceased claimant because: a. Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act provides that a cause of action based on personal injuries causing the death of the deceased survives to his heirs. b. The principle underlying Section 306 of the Succession Act is that a cause of action based on personal injuries causing the death of the deceased survives to his heirs and they can be substituted in his place in a claim petition preferred by the deceased before the MACT. c. This view has been supported by several High Courts, including the Calcutta High Court. 2. The court held that the MACT has the power to allow substitution of the legal heirs as claimants because: a. The powers of the Civil Court have been transferred to the MACT, and the MACT has jurisdiction to act in this manner by applying the provision of Order 22 of the CPC to consider a petition for substitution. b. The MACT has inherent jurisdiction to allow such substitution. 3. The court held that Order 22 of the CPC is applicable to proceedings before the MACT because: a. A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court has held that the CPC is applicable to proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. b. The object and purpose of the transfer of jurisdiction to the MACT is to secure speedy and expeditious disposal of the claim cases by the Tribunals.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order of the MACT. The court directed the MACT to consider the substitution application of the petitioners and dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunities to the parties concerned.
Judgement
- This petition is made under S.115 of C.P.C. against the order dt. 7-3-79 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Motor Accident Title Suit No. 7 of 1974 rejecting the praver of the petitioners who wanted to be substituted in place of the deceased claimant. The predecessoring-interest of the etitioner (Rebati Mohan Dey since deceased, was knocked down in accident wherein he was injured by the bus belonging to the opposite party No. 1. Shri Debabrata Bardhan. This occurred on 18-11-73 as a result of which Rebati Mohan Dey sustained a serious injury and his two legs had to be amputated. He filed a claim petition in the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal claiming compensation for such injury to the extent of Rupees 40,000 and impleaded the owner of the bus as opposite party No. 1 and the New India Assurance Company as opposite party No. 2 in the said claim application. During the pendency of the claim petition, the claimant Rebati Mohan Dey having died, the present petitioners being the legal heirs and representatives, made an application for substitution of their names in place of the deceased claimant. The petitioners wanted that they should be allowed to continue the litigation as cause of action survives and they are necessary parties to be treated as claimants being the surviving legal representatives of Rebati Mohan Dey. The learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal rejected their prayer on the ground that the action brought by Rebati Mohan was purely a personal one and the cause of action does not survive on his death. Therefore, the subject-matter of the present litigation was ended at that end on dismissal of the claim petition by the order dt. 7-3-79. This order has been challenged by the petitioners in this application.
2. Mr. A.M. Lodh, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the approach of the learned Tribunal that it was a personal cause and it does not survive on his death to the legal representatives to continue the action, is absolutely untenable in law and the impugned order as such, is liable to be quashed.
3. Mr. P.M. Palit, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 as well as Mr. P.K. Dhar, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, supporting each other, have stated that the claim petition has abated as there cannot be any substitution inasmuch as the injured died long after the accident and the cause of action does nor survive to the legal heirs to continue the proceeding on the ground that the injuries so sustained by Rebati Mohan Dey was not the immediate cause of his death. In other words, Rebati Mohan died after long 4 years and therefore, his death has no nexus with the injuries sustained by him long before 4 years of his death. The last submission of Mr. Dhar, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 is, that at any rate, provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable in a proceeding under Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, as there is no specific provision for substitution under the Motor Vehicles. Act, the prayer for substitution cannot be allowed by applying the provision of the C.P.C. This contention of the learned counsel must be repelled. In this context, I desire to refer to a Division Bench decision of this Court where a similar matter came up for consideration as to whether the C.P.C. is attracted and or has any application in a claim proceeding under Motor Vehicles Act. The Division Bench of this Court in M.A. (F.) No. 18 of 1978*. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pyara Singh (disposed of on 5-2-82) where I was also one of the parties to that decision with my learned brother Mr. Justice K. Lahiri (who spoke for the Court) came to the conclution and answered the question in affirmative to the effect that "it is applicable". The relevant portion can be quoted as hereunder: -
* Reported in
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
