Back
2011 Supreme(P&H) 358
2011(1) Law Herald (P&H) 846
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan
FAO No.399 of 1988
M/s Haryana Glue Works, Palwal
v.
Kapoor Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 31/01/2011}
For the Appellant in FAO No.399 of 1988: None.
For the Respondents No.1 to 3: None.
For the Respondent No.4:Mr. Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. N.K. Khosla, Advocate.
For the Appellant in FAO No.400 of 1988:Mr. Chander Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents No.1 to 3, 5 & 6: None.
For the Respondent No.4:Mr. Gautam Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. N.K. Khosla, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.7:Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Accident--Claimant unregistered patnership firm--Claim would not be dismissed on the only ground that the owner had not been shown to be a registered firm--Nor can be denied through such a owner for a damage caused by the accident.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Partnership Act, 1932, S.69--Firm not registered with the registrar of firms--Effect of--Accident took place by the negligent driving of the driver of truck--Claim rejected on the ground that claimant had not been shown to registered under the Partnership Act--Right to claim accrued to the firm not under the contract, but as a consequence of a tort--Such as by the result of negligent driving of another person Section 69 of the Act not attracted. (Para 2)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988--Accident--Claimant could be any person who suffered a damage arising out of a use of a motor vehicle. (Para 2)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166--Partnership Act, 1932, S.69--Accident--Firm not registered with Registrar of firms--Claim by--Not to be rejected--Firm had been a registered owner of the vehicle and the Motor Vehicle Act itself did not provide for restriction of who the owner could be--Claim would not be dismissed on the only ground that the owner had not been shown to be a registered firm--Nor can be denied through such a owner for a damage caused by the accident. (Paras 2 & 3)
(D) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988--Negligence of minor--Presumption of--Tribunal reasoned that the other claimant minor ought to have driving the vehicle himself which was nobody’s case--There is no presumption of liability that a minor is responsible for the accident and negligence must always be attributed to him--There could be no presumption that a minor or person who did not have a valid driving license could be presumed to be a tort-feasor. (Para 4)
Mr. K. Kannan, J. (Oral):- Both the appeals are connected, the former for damages caused to the vehicle which was owned by the claimant and the latter for injuries suffered in an accident. Both the claim petitions were dismissed. The subject matter of appeal in FAO No.399 of 1988 is out of a claim lodged at the instance of M/s Haryana Glue Works represented through the Managing Partner Narain Singh. The contention was that the accident had taken place by the negligent driving of the driver of the truck. The petition was dismissed without going into the merits on the ground that claimant had not been shown to have been registered under the Partnership Act and Section 69 of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 constitutes a bar on enforcement of claim. Section 69 of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 reads as follows:-
“69.Effect of non-registration - (1) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract or conferred by this Act shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a partner in a firm against the firm or any person alleged to be or to have been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the person suing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm.
(2) No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm.
(3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract, but shall not affect—
(a) the enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm, or
(b) the powers of an official assignee, receiver or Court under the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 1909, or the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, to realise the property of an insolvent partner.
(4) This section shall not apply—
(a) to firms or to partners in firms which have no place of business in [the territories to which this Act extends], or whose places of business in [the said territories]are situated in areas to which, by notification under [section 56], this Chapter does not apply, or
(b) to any suit or claim of set-off not exceeding one hundred rupees in value which, in the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in section 19 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, or, outside the Presidency-towns, is not of a kind specified in the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, or to any proceeding in execution or other proceeding incidental to or arising from any such suit or claim.”
2. A statutory bar is applicable only in a suit to enforce a right claiming from a contract or conferred as a right under the Partnership Act itself. The right that accrues to a firm not under the contract, but as a consequence of a tort, such as by the result of negligent driving of another person then Section 69 of the Act itself will not be attracted. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and it must be so consrued that any narrow interpretation must be averted unless there is a specific bar constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act itself. I would understand the claimant could be any person who suffers a damage arising out of a use of a motor vehicle. If a firm had been a registered owner of the vehicle and the motor vehicle Act itself did not provide for restriction of who the owner could be then, I will not allow dismissal of the claim on the only ground that the owner had not been shown to be a registered firm. The owner is defined under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as follows:-
“(30) “owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor v
