Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sandhawalia, P.C.Jain and S.S.Kang JJ.
Jai Singh
Versus
N.A.Subramaniam
Letter Patent Appeal No. 281 of 1977,
Cross Objection No. 16 of 1978,
Decided On : JUNE 2, 1982
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Claims Tribunal - Power to allow amendment of claim application - Amendment after expiry of limitation period - Principles to be followed - Claim for apprehended loss resulting from inability to set up private practice or secure other lucrative employment after retirement - Maintainability.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, Colonel N.A. Subramaniam, was injured in a car accident caused by the appellant, Jai Singh. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the respondent, which was enhanced by the Single Judge on appeal. The appellants and the respondent filed appeals and cross-objections, respectively, before the Full Bench.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Tribunal has the power to allow amendment of a claim application at any time, whether within or after the expiry of the limitation period, on the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. 2. The Appellate Court also has the power to allow amendment of a claim application. 3. In the event of allowing amendment of the claim application, the respondent will ordinarily be entitled to adduce additional evidence to meet the case set up by way of amendment. 4. A claim made by an injured person for his apprehended loss resulting from his inability (or handicap) to set up a private practice or secure other lucrative employment after his retirement is generally not maintainable, as it is speculative. However, such a claim may be maintainable in cases where solid facts, such as actual offers for jobs or plans for starting a practice, are pleaded and proved.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to allow amendment of a claim application after the expiry of the limitation period? 2. Whether the Appellate Court has the power to allow amendment of a claim application? 3. Whether, in the event of allowing amendment of the claim application, the respondent will be entitled to adduce additional evidence to meet the case set up by way of amendment? 4. Whether a claim made by an injured person for his apprehended loss resulting from his inability (or handicap) to set up a private practice or secure other lucrative employment after his retirement is maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Tribunal has all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 2. Section 110-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, specifically provides that in holding an enquiry on the claim application made before it under S.110-B, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. 3. The provisions of Section 110-C and Rule 20 of the Punjab Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1964, do not either expressly or by necessary implication exclude the applicability of those provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to which there is no specific mention, to the proceedings before the Tribunal. 4. A claim for apprehended loss resulting from inability to set up private practice or secure other lucrative employment after retirement is speculative and not computable in terms of money, and is therefore not maintainable, except in cases where solid facts, such as actual offers for jobs or plans for starting a practice, are pleaded and proved.
Final Decision: The questions referred to the Full Bench are answered accordingly. The cases will now go to the Division Bench for disposal on merits.
P.C.JAIN, J.
1. This judgement and order of ours would dispose of L.P. As. Nos.281, 282, 283 and 284 of 1977 as well as cross-objections No.16 of 1978 filed in L.P.A. No.281 of 1977 and cross-objections No.15 of 1978 filed in L.P.A. No.284 of 1977, as common questions of law and fact arise in these appeals and cross-objections.
2. In order to appreciate the controversy, certain salient features of the case be noticed :-
3. Colonel N.A. Subramaniam respondent along with Colonel J.S. Khurana and Major Y. Bisaria were going towards the Airport, Chandigarh, in a Military staff car driven by Sepoy-driver P. Mohammad on November 7, 1969, when the staff car met with an accident with a private car No. CH-1104, which was being driven by Sham Singh respondent and was owned by Jai Singh appellant, at the crossing of the roads between Sectors 23 and 24 and the Dakshan Marg. As a result of the accident, Colonel Subramaniam was thrown out and received injuries, so also the other occupants of the car including the driver. All the four injured persons filed claim applications for compensation. The learned Tribunal vide its award dated July 11, 1973, awarded compensation of Rupees one lac to Colonel N.A. Subramaniam, Rs. 2,000/- to Colonel J.S. Khurana, Rs. 1,000/- to Major Y. Bisaria and Rs. 3,000/- to Sepoy P. Mohammad.
4. Dissatisfied with the award, Colonel N.A. Subarmaniam filed an appeal in this Court. Similarly, Jai Singh, owner of the car and the General Insurance Company filed two appeals and one revision. All those appeals were heard together by the learned single Judge, who vide his judgement dated May 20, 1977, enhanced the compensation of Colonel N.A. Subramaniam from rupees one lac to rupees three lacs with interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from the date of claim application till its payment and dismissed the other appeals and revision filed by the owner of the car and the Insurance Company.
5. Aggrieved from the judgement of the learned single Judge, the appeals referred to above have been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent.
6. The appeals and the cross-objections came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. After hearing the arguments and on consideration of the entire matter, the Bench found that some substantial questions of law were involved in the appeals Consequently, after formulating the following questions, the appeals have been referred to Full Bench for decision.
1. Whether the claim of an injured person holding a pensionable post, for compensation on the ground of apprehended loss resulting from his inability (or handicap) to set up a private practice or secure other lucrative employment even after the retirement (apart from and in addition to his admissible pension), is a mere speculative possibility or a reasonable probability computable in terms of money?
2. Whether a claimant s amendment application seeking an enhanced compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, after the period of limitation has expired, can be allowed at the appellate stage?
3. If the answer to question No.(2) is in the affirmative, whether the respondent would ordinarily be entitled to adduce evidence and re-cross-examine the opposing witnesses afresh to avoid any prejudice on this score?
This is how we are seized of the matter.
7 The case was argued at great length before us and in view of the arguments advanced on either side by the learned counsel, I feel that it would be necessary to recast questions No.2 and 3, as before finding out the power of the Appellate Court to allow amendment in cases filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to a the Act ), it would be essential and necessary to find out the power of the Tribunal in this regard. Consequently, I propose to recast the above questions Nos.2 and 3 into the following three questions :-
2. Whether a Tribunal under the Act has power to allow amendment of a claims application after the expiry of the period of limitation?
3. 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
