The technical provisions of CPC are not strictly applicable to proceedings before MACT under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the dismissal of the claim petition otherwise than on merits is not a bar to a fresh petition.

Paramjeet Singh, J.

This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 2846 of 2011 titled "Smt. Suresh Devi and, others v. Jasbir Singh and others" and Civil Revision No. 2849 of 2011 titled "Smt. Saroj Bala and others v. Jasbir Singh and others", as they arise out of the same order. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 2846 of 2011.

2. Instant revision petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 3.01.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter MACT), Mohali, whereby the claim petition moved by the petitioners has been dismissed on the ground that earlier the petitioners had filed a petition on same facts before MACT Ambala which was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.05.2009 without permission to file fresh one same cause of action.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that principles of CPC are not strictly applicable to the present case. Learned counsel contended that if the first claim petition was not decided on merits, second claim petition is maintainable. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of this court passed in FAO No. 1977 of 2010 titled "Smt. Kuldeep Kaur and Ors. v. Kanwaldeep Singh and Others" decided on 10.11.2010.

5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents contended that since the petition before MACT Ambala was withdrawn without any liberty to file fresh one therefore the second claim petition is not maintainable by virtue of Order 23 Rule 1 of CPC (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") and has rightly been dismissed. Moreover, the petitioners cannot be allowed to choose forum as per their convenience. It amounts to abuse of judicial process.

6. In backdrop of above factual matrix and contentions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties, the question to be determined by this court is "whether the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC would operate as bar to second claim petition filed under Motor Vehicles Act if the first was dismissed as withdrawn without any liberty to file fresh?

7. On numerous occasions the courts have been called upon to determine the applicability of provisions of CPC in proceedings before MACT and by now it is settled that since Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') is a beneficial legislation, therefore technical provisions of CPC are not strictly applicable to the proceedings before MACT.

8. The question of maintainability of second petition after dismissal of first being withdrawn or on any other technical ground have arisen before this court and other Hon'ble High Courts. The Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Vimla Devi and Another (Smt.) Vs. Rajendra Kumar and Others, (2004) ACJ 504 has considered the issue of maintainability of second claim petition when first was dismissed in default. In that case the second claim petition was dismissed by invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Nevertheless, court held that such fresh petition is maintainable. In Dinesh Kumar v. Sunil Kumar W.P. No. 2021 of 2008 decided on 06.11.2012, wherein, the second claim petition was dismissed by MACT Seoni as the petitioner had already preferred a claim petition before MACT Lakhnadon, Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as under:

...In view of the aforesaid on examining the present matter, it is apparent that the petitioner has not adopted the way to restore the aforesaid earlier claim petition filed before the claims tribunal of Lakhnadon. He had also not adopted the process to file the appeal against the order of MACT Lakhnadon. The review petition was also not filed by him but he has filed the fresh claim petition because the limitation was available to him to file the same.... In view of the aforesaid it is apparent that the limitation was available to the petitioner to file the fresh claim petition before the tribunal and the same could have been filed by him either in the territorial jurisdiction of M