Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.S.Singhvi and K.S.Kumaran JJ.
Krishna Devi
Versus
Hardev Singh
Letter Patent Appeal No. 464 of 1986,
Decided On : AUGUST 18, 1998
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - COMPENSATION - AMENDMENT OF CLAIM PETITIONS - CROSS OBJECTIONS - INTEREST - PRINCIPLES GOVERNING AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS - INTERPRETATION OF ORDER XLI, RULES 22 AND 33 C.P.C. - POWER OF APPELLATE COURT TO PASS ANY DECREE OR ORDER WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW.
Fact of the Case:
Two claim petitions were filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for compensation arising out of a fatal accident involving two trucks. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants, limiting the award to Rs. 40,000/- due to their inability to pay ad valorem court fee. The Insurance Company filed appeals against the award, and the claimants filed cross objections for enhancement of compensation and interest. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appeals and cross objections.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the appeals and remanded the cases back to the Single Bench for fresh adjudication. It held that the rejection of the amendment applications filed by the claimants was erroneous as the delay in filing the applications did not cause any prejudice to the opposite side and the claimants' lack of sufficient means to lodge claims for larger compensation was not denied by the opposite party. The Court also held that the cross-objections filed by the claimants should have been entertained as their claims were intermixed with the liability of the Insurance Company and the learned Single Judge should have invoked provisions of Order XLI, Rule 33 C.P.C. for entertaining the claim made by the appellants for award of higher compensation and also for grant of higher interest.
Issues: 1. Whether the rejection of the amendment applications filed by the claimants was erroneous? 2. Whether the cross-objections filed by the claimants should have been entertained?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the rejection of the amendment applications filed by the claimants was erroneous as the delay in filing the applications did not cause any prejudice to the opposite side and the claimants' lack of sufficient means to lodge claims for larger compensation was not denied by the opposite party. The Court relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1267 and Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 484, which emphasize that procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice and that amendments should be allowed unless there is mala fide or injury to the opponent. 2. The Court held that the cross-objections filed by the claimants should have been entertained as their claims were intermixed with the liability of the Insurance Company and the learned Single Judge should have invoked provisions of Order XLI, Rule 33 C.P.C. for entertaining the claim made by the appellants for award of higher compensation and also for grant of higher interest. The Court relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Panna Lal v. State of Bombay and Ors., A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1516, Koksingh v. Smt. Deokabai, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 634, and Mahant Dhangir and Anr. v. Shri Madan Mohan and Ors., A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 54, which interpret Order XLI, Rules 22 and 33 and hold that the appellate Court has wide powers to pass any decree or order which ought to have been passed by the Court below, including decrees or orders between respondents.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the impugned judgments were set aside, and the cases were remanded back to the Single Bench for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
G.S.Singhvi, J.
1. The facts necessary for deciding these appeals are that Prem Nath and Pawan Kumar, who were travelling in truck No. HRH 5995 driven by one Jasbir Singh as owners of goods being transported in the said truck were killed in an accident that took place on 17.3.1980 at 1.30 a.m. near Village Chikanwas, Hisar-Sirsa road. The other vehicle involved in the accident was truck No. PNO-1537 which was loaded with cotton bales and was driven by Hukam Chand. As a result of collision, truck No. HRH-5995 turned turtle and caught fire resulting in the death of the owners of the goods. Surinder son of the owner of truck No.HRH-5995 and driver of truck No. PNO-1537 were also killed in the accident. Smt. Krishna Devi and other heirs of late Shri Prem Nath filed petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for award of compensation. A similar petition was filed by Smt. Shanti Devi, widow of late Shri Pawan Kumar and his heirs. The claimants limited their claim to Rs. 40,000/- because of their inability to pay ad valorem court fee. The Insurance Company, the owners and the drivers of the two trucks were impleaded as party respondents by the claimants. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar clubbed the two cases and decided them by one judgment dated 31.10.1983. The Tribunal held the drivers of both the trucks guilty of rash and contributory negligent driving (70% qua driver of truck No. HRH-5995 and 30% of the driver of truck No. PNO-1537). On the issue of compensation, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of 10 and assessed the compensation payable to the claimants as Rs. 60,000/- in each case but restricted the award to Rs. 40,000/- in view of the prayer made in the claim petitions. The Tribunal also held the Insurance Company of truck No. HRH-5995 liable to pay compensation. The operative part of the award, passed by the Tribunal reads as under:-
"In view of my findings above, petitioner Krishna Devi in petition Krishna Devi v. Hardev Singh etc. is entitled to Rs. 16,000/- and petitioners Ravi Kumar, Narenderpal and Chander Kanta are entitled to Rs. 8,000/- each with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of award. The petitioners Shanti Devi, Ashok Kumar, Shimpu, Anita and Buchar in petition Shanti Devi v. Hardev Singh etc., are entitled to Rs. 8000/- each with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of award. Since the accident had been caused by composite negligence of drivers of both the trucks and their negligence has been assessed at 70% and 30%, therefore, the owners and insurer of truck No.HRH-5995 are liable to pay Rs. 28,000/- in each petition while the owners and insurer of truck No. PNO-1537 are liable to pay Rs. 12,000/- in each petition. Since the accident had been caused by the composite negligence of drivers of both the trucks, therefore, owners and insurance company of both the vehicles are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation in both the petitions."
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited filed F.A.O. No. 458 and 459 of 1984 against the award passed by the Tribunal in which the claimants, Owners of the trucks and insurer of truck No. PNO-1587 were impleaded as party respondents. On receipt of notice of the appeal, the claimants (appellants herein) filed separate cross objections dated 28.9.1985 under Order XLI Rule 22 for enhancement of compensation and award of interest @18% from the date of accident. They also filed separate applications dated 13.11.1985 under Order VI, Rule 17 for grant of leave to amend the claim petitions. The learned Single Judge allowed the appeals filed by the Insurance Company and dismissed the cross objections as well as the amendment applications filed by the claimants.
3. Shri M.S. Ratta assailed the judgment of the learned Single Judge by arguing that rejection of amendment application filed by the claimants-appellants is per se erroneous because the learned Single Judge failed to apply the basic principles whi
AI
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
