Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sandhawalia and S.P.Goyal JJ.
Shila Wanti
Versus
R.B.Kishore Chand
Letter Patent Appeal No. 328 of 1977,
Decided On : MARCH 21, 1983
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SEC.110-B - LIMITATION ACT - ART.120 - CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - APPLICATION TO BRING ON RECORD LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED OWNER IN APPEAL - NOT GOVERNED BY ART.120 - NO LIMITATION - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION OF OWNER'S NAME IN CLAIM PETITION AFTER LIMITATION - TRIBUNAL HAS JURISDICTION TO ALLOW - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - DECEASED NOT GUILTY - COMPENSATION - ASSESSMENT - PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN.
Fact of the Case:
Claimants filed a petition before the Tribunal alleging that the death of Gian Chand was caused by rash and negligent driving of the truck by Narain Singh, driver, and claimed Rs. 1,70,418.40 as compensation. The Tribunal dismissed the petition against respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as barred by time as they had been impleaded as parties after the expiry of the period for filing the claim-petition and against respondent No. 1 on the finding that neither he was employee of respondent No. 1 nor was driving the truck at the relevant time. On the question of compensation it was held that the deceased was equally negligent with the driver and that the pecuniary loss to the claimants was to the tune of Rs. 49,163/-. However, after making deduction on account of contributory negligence and other matters, the claimants were ultimately held entitled only to Rs. 1, 790.00 .
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased owner in appeal is not an application under the Civil P. C., and therefore, Art.120 would not govern the same. The court also held that the Tribunal has enough jurisdiction to allow addition or substitution of any person in the claim petition after the expiry of the limitation for its filing. The court further held that the deceased was not guilty of contributory negligence and that the accident took place entirely because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 4. The court also held that the method of calculation of compensation adopted by the Tribunal was not correct and that the compensation should be assessed afresh keeping in view the principles laid down by the Full Bench.
Issues: Whether the application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased owner in appeal is governed by Art.120 of the Limitation Act? Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to allow addition or substitution of any person in the claim petition after the expiry of the limitation for its filing? Whether the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence? Whether the method of calculation of compensation adopted by the Tribunal was correct?
Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder do not make applicable the Civil P. C. as a whole, to proceedings before a Tribunal under the Act, yet nothing in the Act prohibits resort by the Tribunal to the principles embodied in various Rules relating to the conduct of Proceedings before a Civil Court. The Tribunal is free to follow any procedure which it considers expedient to the interest of justice. The application for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased owner in appeal is not an application under the Civil P. C., and therefore, Art.120 would not govern the same. The Tribunal has enough jurisdiction to allow addition or substitution of any person in the claim petition after the expiry of the limitation for its filing. The deceased was not guilty of contributory negligence and the accident took place entirely because of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No. 4. The method of calculation of compensation adopted by the Tribunal was not correct and the compensation should be assessed afresh keeping in view the principles laid down by the Full Bench.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal was set aside and the award passed in favour of the appellants in the amount of Rs. 57,600.00 together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. The owners, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the driver, respondent No. 4 would be liable to pay the amount jointly and severally. However, the liability of the Insurance Company would be limited to Rs. 20,000/apart from the interest at the said rate or the same amount in accordance with the law prevalent at the time of the accident. The claimants shall also be entitled to their costs throughout.
S.P.GOYAL, J.
1. This appeal under cl.10 of the Letters patent has been brought against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated June 3, 1977 whereby the appeal of the claimants was dismissed as having abated,
2. Gian Chand Joshi, a clerk in the Railway Workshop Accounts Office, Amritsar, was run over by truck No. PNO 3442 and died on May 11, 1969. His widow. three minor children, appellants and two major children respondents No. 5 and 6, filed this petition before the Tribunal alleging that the death of Gian Chand was caused by rash and negligent driving of the truck by Narain Singh, driver, and claimed Rs. 1,70,418.40 as compensation. Messrs Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand and Sons, a joint Hindu family concern, and Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand were named in the petition as owners and the Calcutta Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the truck.
3. Respondent Narain Singh, driver of the truck did not appear in spite of service and was proceeded ex parte, The other three respondents opposed the petition and denied their liability. The Tribunal after recording evidence of the parties dismissed the petition against respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as barred by time as they had been impleaded as parties after the expiry of the period for filing the claim-petition and against respondent No. 1 on the finding that neither he was employee of respondent No. 1 nor was driving the truck at the relevant time. On the question of compensation it was held that the deceased was equally negligent with the driver and that the pecuniary loss to the claimants was to the tune of Rs. 49,163/-. However, after making deduction on account of contributory negligence and other matters, the claimants were ultimately held entitled only to Rs. 1, 790.00 .
4. Against the said award of the Tribunal four claimants came up in appeal to this Court. During the pendency of the case. Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand died on Jan. 22, 1975 but the application to bring on record his successor, Partap Chand. was filed sometime after Feb. 24, 1977, when this matter was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the appellants. It was declined as barred by time holding that the claim proceedings were in the nature of a civil suit; that the Tribunal was a civil Court for all intents and purposes and that the application for impleading the legal representatives would be governed by Art.120 of the Limitation Act. In the result, the appeal itself was dismissed against all the respondents having abated vide judgment dated June 3, 1977. Hence this appeal.
5. There can be no manner of doubt that the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal closely resemble to the Proceedings in a civil Court and as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Thakur Jugal Kishore V/s. Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank, AIR 1967 SC 1494. the Tribunal is for all intents and purposes a civil Court discharging the same functions and duties in the same manner as civil court is expected to do. Again it was authoritatively settled by a Full Bench of this Court in Shanti Devi V/s. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, 1971 ACJ 247 : (AIR 1972 Punj 65) that the High Court hearing appeals against the award of the Tribunal acts as a court and that the claims proceedings even if at inception have resemblance to arbitration proceedings. do not retain this character as such in appeal. All the same, question still arises whether on the basis of the said pronouncements it can be said that the application for bringing the legal representatives of deceased respondent on record in the appeal against the award of the Tribunal would be governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act. The said article provides a limitation of 90 days for an application under the Civil P. C. to have the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff or appellant or deceased defendant or respondent, made a party. This article obviously applies only to the applications which are filed under O.22 of the Civil P. C. The solution of the problem
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
