The presentation of a claim petition under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act by an advocate on behalf of the claimants is valid, and an error, defect, or irregularity of procedure must be material to be a valid ground of appeal.

1. - This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara dated May 30, 1972.

2. The respondents 1 to 6 are the legal representatives of the deceased Magan Lal. They preferred a claim of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the appellant Jagdish, the owner of the bus, respondent No. 7 Chand Khan, the driver of the bus & respondent No. 8, the Insurance Company, on account of the death of Magan Lal in an accident which took place on 20-5-1971. At the time of the accident Maganlal was travelling in a passenger bus bearing registration No. RJR 2973 and belonging to the appellant. It was going from Bhilwara to Beawar via Mandal. It was alleged by the claimant respondent that the bus was over loaded and two passengers were sitting on the wrong side of the driver. It was also alleged that the driver of the bus namely Chand Khan was driving the bus at an excessive speed. It was said that when the bus reached at the curve of village Sirdiyas, the driver could not control the vehicle, with the result that the vehicle left the road and turned turtle at a distance of about 40' from the road. As a result of this accident several persons were injured out of whom Maganlal died on the spot & one other person Bhuralal died in the hospital. The claimants alleged gross negligence and rashness on the part of the driver. The claim was resisted by the appellant, the owner of the bus, as well as the respondents No. 7 and 8 the driver and the Insurance Company respectively. The Tribunal after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the bus left the road and it turned turtle at a distance of 40' to 50' away from the road. The Tribunal further held that the plea of the driver that the accident happened because some spring was broken, was after thought. The Tribunal presumed negligence on the part of the driver by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitor. The Tribunal accepted the claim and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- to the claimants from the appellant, the owner of the bus, respondent No. 7, the driver of the bus and respondent No. 8 the Insurance Company. The Tribunal however limited the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 5,000/- only. It is against this award of the Tribunal that the appellant, the owner of the bus, has preferred this appeal.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant has urged the following points before me:

(1) Since the claim petition was presented by the Advocate of the respondent No. 1 to 6, the presentation of the claim was improper under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2) That the appellant was not given adequate opportunity to produce his evidence.

(3) That there existed no reliable evidence to prove that the driver of the bus was driving the bus at an excessive speed.

4. The amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive in as much as the Tribunal took the expectation of life at 65 Years.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. I find no substance in any of the points urged before me.

5. Section 110A does not lay down that the claim petition must be presented by the claimants personally and not through their advocate. That apart, this plea was not raised in the written statement filed by the appellant. This point was of course raised at the time of argument before the Tribunal but it was rightly turned down. It may be mentioned here that under Section 99 Civil Procedure Code an error, defect or irregularity of procedure must in order to be a valid ground of appeal, be a material one i.e. it should have either affected the merits of the case or affected the jurisdiction of the court. It is not the case of the appellant that wrong presentation of the claim in any way affected the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court. There is thus no substance in t