IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the provisions of the CPC do not strictly apply to MACT proceedings, allowing for the revival of a claim petition withdrawn without merits.

JUDGMENT :

Ritu Tagore, J.

This is an appeal against the award dated 11.02.2011, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, whereby claim petition filed by appellants/claimants have been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants, contended that learned Tribunal materially erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that second petition on same cause of action is barred under Order 23 Rule 1 (4) of Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Learned counsel submits that principles of Code of Civil Procedure are not strictly applicable to the proceedings before the learned Tribunal. In support, he referred to the authority in ‘Suresh Devi and others vs. Jasbir Singh and others’ 2014 (1) PLR 466.

4. Learned counsel further urges that learned Tribunal erred by not considering that there was no specific issue framed regarding the maintainability of the petition. Therefore, learned Tribunal should not have dismissed the claim petition.

5. Learned counsel also argues that claimants did not purposefully conceal the filing of earlier petition. The non-mentioning of the same in petition, given facts, was of no consequence. Learned counsel thus urged to set aside the order dated 11.02.2011, passed by the learned Tribunal.

6. Per Contra, Learned counsel for the owner stated that since earlier petition filed was withdrawn, without any liberty to file fresh petition, therefore, second claim petition was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 (4) of CPC and second petition has rightly been dismissed. Moreover, claimants did not disclose the fact of withdrawal of earlier petition in present (subsequent) petition and suppressed material and real facts from the Court. It amounts to abuse of process of law. On this ground, the claimants have been rightly non-suited.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record and the paper book.

8. The question of maintainability of second petition after dismissal of first petition being withdrawn had arisen before this Court in Suresh Devi (supra) after taking into consideration the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in ‘Dinesh Kumar vs. Sunil Kumar’ in Writ Petition No.2021 of 2008, dedded on 06.11.2012, and decisions rendered by this Court in ‘Kuldeep Kaur and others vs. Kanwaldeep Singh in PAO no.1977 of 2007, decided on 10.11.2010, and ‘Bimla Devi and another vs. Raj Bala and others’ in CR No.4995 of 2008, decided on 10.03.2009, held that ‘the judicial approach, thus, seems to be liberal in regard to prosecution of claim petitions under the Act. The dismissal of the claim petition, otherwise than on merits, has not been held to be a bar to fresh petition, irrespective of the fact whether the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn or was dismissed in default. In light of legal position stated above, I am of the considered view that in the instant case, the second petition filed by claimant in MACT, Mohali, ought not to have dismissed on the ground that no liberty was sought to file fresh petition when the earlier petition was withdrawn from MACT, Ambala. If the petition is otherwise maintainable, it should not have been dismissed on technical grounds. The claimant not only has the right to file fresh petition, but it can also choose the forum wherein such petition may be filed.’

9. Coming to the facts of the present case, claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.12 lakh with interest, on account of death of Sat Narain, in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 27.10.2001, caused by respondent No.1, by driving the offending truck bearing registration No.HR-37-5242, recklessly and negligently.

10. Respondent’s (driver, owner and insurer) of the offending vehicle filed the reply and denied the cause and manner of accident. Respondent No.2 driver pleaded his false implication. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company pleaded violation of terms and conditions of policy on th