Back
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
GURDEV SINGH,H. R. KHANNA, JJ.
New India Assurance Co., New Delhi
Versus
Punjab Roadways, Ambala City
F. A. F. O. No. 103 of 1961 and Civil Misc. No. 3255 of 1961
Decided On : 17-12-1962
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110-A - APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION - LOCUS STANDI OF HUSBAND TO MAKE APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF INJURED WIFE - SUBSTITUTION OF NAME OF WIFE IN PLACE OF HUSBAND - EXTENSION OF TIME - SUFFICIENT CAUSE - QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION.
Fact of the Case:
On 16th November, 1959, the respondent Shrimati Lajwanti boarded at Ambala cantonment the Punjab Roadways Bus No. PNE, 8318 bound for Chandigarh. As the bus came to a crossing on the G. T. road near Ambala City, it collided with bus No. PNT 1080 owned by the appellant, the samana Bus Service, Shrimati Lajwanti sustained grievous injuries, including fracture of her skull, and became unconscious. She was promptly removed to the Mission Hospital Ambala City and after first aid had been rendered to her, she was taken to the local civil hospital and was admitted there as an indoor patient. She lay there unconscious for a number of days and was discharges only on 3rd January, 1960, though not yet cured.
Finding of the Court:
1. The Tribunal was justified in allowing substitution of the name of Shrimati Lajwanti for Dev Raj as the provisions of Order 1 rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code did not apply to the proceedings, and the Tribunal had inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae, to do that real and substantial justice for the administration of which it alone existed and to do all things that were reasonably necessary for securing the ends of justice; within the scope of its jurisdiction, relying upon D.N. Ray v. Nalin Behari Bose, 46 Ind Cas 621 : (ER-Beng) and, Hukumchand Boid v. Kamalanand Singh, ILR 33 Cal 927. 2. The Tribunal was justified in extending the period of limitation, finding that sufficient cause had been made out, and the learned Tribunal quite properly exercised its powers under the proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 110-A. 3. The drivers of both the buses were responsible for the accident and their owners liable for the damages. 4. The award of Rs. 9032.85 n. p. to Shrimati Lajwanti was not unreasonable.
Issues: 1. Whether the accident is due to rash and negligent act of the driver of PNT 8318 owned by the Punjab Roadways, Ambala, or by the driver of PNT 1080 owned by the Samana Bus Service ? 2. What is the quantum of compensation due to the applicant, if any, and from whom ? 3. Relief ?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The expression "duly authorized agent" contained in clause (c) of Sub-Section (1), of Section 110-A of the Motor vehicles Act does not mean a person expressly authorized, or that the authority should be in writing, but includes a person having implied authority to claim compensation for the one who is injured the accident. 2. The Tribunal had inherent powers to act ex debito justitiae, to do that real and substantial justice for the administration of which it alone existed and to do all things that were reasonably necessary for securing the ends of justice; within the scope of its jurisdiction. 3. The words "sufficient cause" as used in the proviso to Sub-Section (3) of Section 110-A of the motor Vehicles Act has to be interpreted in the same sense an which it is used in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and no sufficient cause for extension of time was made out in the present case.
Final Decision: Both the appeals (F. A. O. Nos. 103 and 110 of 1961) and the cross-objections (C. M. 3255 of 1961) fail, and we dismiss the same, affirming the Tribunals award. Parties to bear their own costs of this Court.
2. On the morning of 16th November, 1959, the respondent Shrimati Lajwanti boarded at Ambala cantonment the Punjab Roadways Bus No. PNE, 8318 bound for Chandigarh. As the bus came to a crossing on the G. T. road near Ambala City, it collided with bus No. PNT 1080 owned by the appellant, the samana Bus Service, Shrimati Lajwanti sustained grievous injuries, including fracture of her skull, and became unconscious. She was promptly removed to the Mission Hospital Ambala City and after first aid had been rendered to her, she was taken to the local civil hospital and was admitted there as an indoor patient. She lay there unconscious for a number of days and was discharges only on 3rd January, 1960, though not yet cured.
3. On 27th November, 1959, while she was still lying unconscious in the hospital, her husband Dev Raj, being under the erroneous impression that claim for compensation had to be lodged within 15 days of the accident, presented to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab, an application under Sec. 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939, claiming Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for injuries suffered by his wife in this accident. It was specifically stated therein that Shrimati Lajwanti, who had become unconscious as a result of the accident, was still lying unconscious in the hospital.
4. Originally the Punjab Roadways, Ambala, alone was made a party to the proceedings, but subsequently, on 28th December 1959, Dev Raj applied for impleading the State of Punjab, being the owner of the Punjab Roadways, the Samana Bus Syndicate, to whom one of the vehicles involved in the accident belonged, and Mehar Singh, the driver of their vehicle as respondents. In that application, besides stating that Shrimati Lajwanti was still lying unconscious in the hospital, Dev Raj stated as follows : -
"As the time limit for making the application under the law was 15 days and I had to come from Lucknow, I, therefore, as representative of my wife made the application in hurry and could not get the correct particulars for drafting the application".
5. It was not disputed by the State of Punjab and the Punjab Headways that Srimati Lajwanti sustained injuries while travelling in their bus, but they denied their liability on the plea that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Samana bus Syndicate, who did not even hold a valid licence.
6. The Samana Bus Syndicate and its driver, Mehar Singh (respondents 3 and 4), besides pleading that they were in no way responsible for the accident, objected that the claim application was not entertainable as it had not been made by shrimati Lajwanti who was still alive, but by a third person it was also complained that the amount claimed was highly exaggerated.
7. The trial of the petition proceeded on the following issues framed on 26th February, 1960 :-
1. Whether the accident is due to rash and negligent act of the driver of PNT 8318 owned by the Punjab Roadways, Ambala, or by the driver of PNT 1080 owned by the Samana Bus
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
