Back
2003 Supreme(MP) 1107
2004(1) JLJ 227
(FULL BENCH)
S.S. Jha, Chandresh Bhushan and Subhash Samvatsar, JJ.
Jamuna Bai (Smt.) and others v. Chhote Singh and others
Misc. Appeal No. 98 of 1997;
Decided on 28.10.2003.
N.D. Singhal for appellants; M.P. Agarwal for respondent No.3;
S.S. Bansal and B.N. Malhotra amicus curiae.
Headnote:(1) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 173 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 41 R. 14(4) -- notice to respondents dispensed with in appeal under S. 173 -- cannot thereafter be dismissed -- appellate Court may also enhance compensation.
The following question is referred to Larger Bench for adjudication:
"Whether the appeal shall fail for non-service of notice or after dispensing with notice upon the respondents who were ex-parte before the Court of first instance or they have not submitted the address for service of notice ?" [Para 1
Held: We answer the question that the appeal shall not fail on account of dispensing with notice upon the respondents, who were ex-parte before the Court of first instance and they have not submitted the address of service for notice. Since respondents have chosen not to appear before the Court of first instance, they cannot claim right to be heard at the appellate stage. No benefit can be claimed by the party against the exercise of discretion of the Court in dispensing with notice. When notices have been dispensed with, appeal cannot be dismissed and Appellate Court has power to modify or enhance the quantum of compensation. 2000 ACJ 719,2001(2) JU 135 and AIR 2002 MP 8 overruled. 2003(1) MPWN 131 approved. [Para 16
(2) Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (M.P.) -- R. 242(3) -- Motor Vehicles‘ Act, 1988 -- S. 173 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 41 -- appeal under S. 173 of the Act -- provisions under O. 41 of the Code are applicable. [Para 2
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 - O. 41 R. 14(4) -- respondent neither appeared nor filed his address in Court of first instance -- his service in appeal may be dispensed with. [Para 3
(4). Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 41 R. 14(3), 14(4) and 14(5) (as inserted in 1976) -- objects and reasons -- are to avoid delay in disposal of appeal.
It is clear that in order to avoid delay in the disposal of appeal, it was felt that service of memorandum of appeal on those parties, who had not appeared in the Court of first instance and who had not filed any address for service, may be. dispensed with. Subd`rules (3), (4) and (5) are being inserted in Rule 14 to achieve this object.
Thus, powers are conferred upon the Court to dispense with service of notice upon the respondents, who have not appeared before the Court of first instance or have failed "to file address for the service in the Court of first instance. Order 6 Rule 14A provides for furnishing an address for service in a prescribed form jn the Court of first instance. [Paras 7 & 8
(5) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 41 R. 14(4) -- issuance of notice to respondents -- is an incident of appeal. 2000 ACJ 719 .overruled. [Para 9
(6) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 -- S. 110D -- appeal by claimants for enhancement of compensation -- negligence of driver no longer open for consideration -- service of notice on driver dispensed with -amount of compensation may be enhanced. AIR 1999 SC 2977 followed. 2003(1) MPWN 131 approved. [Para 9
(7) Statute -- two views possible on interpretation -- one which promotes object of Legislature is to be preferred. 1999 ACJ 781 relied
¼1½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 ¼e-iz-½ && /kkjk 173 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 41 fu- 14¼4½ && /kkjk 173 ds v/khu vihy esa izR;FkhZx.k dks lwpuk ls vfHkeqfDr nh xbZ && rRi‘pkr` [kkfjt ugha dh tk ldrh && vihy U;k;ky; }kjk izfrdj esa o`f) Hkh dh tk ldrhA
fuEufyf[kr iz‘u U;k;fu.kZ;u ds fy, c`gÙkj U;k;ihB dks funsZf‘kr fd;k x;k gS %
** D;k lwpuk dh rkehy ugha fd, tkus ds dkj.k vFkok mu izR;kfFkZ;ksa dks lwpuk dh rkehy fd, tkus ls vfHkizkIr fd, tkus ds i‘pkr`] tks izFke ckj ds U;k;ky; ds le{k ,di{kh; Fks vFkok ftUgksaus lwpuk dh rkehy ds fy, irk ugha fn;k gS] vihy foQy gksxh \**
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iz‘u dk gekjk mÙkj ;g gS fd mu izR;fFk;ksa dks lwpuk dh rkehy ls vfHkeqfDr fn, tkus ds dkj.k vihy foQy ugha gksxh tks izFke ckj ds U;k;ky; ds le{k ,di{kh; Fks vkSj ftUgksaus lwpuk dh rkehy ds fy, irk ugha fn;k gSA D;ksafd izR;fFkZ;ksa us izFke ckjs ds U;k;ky; d le{k milatkr ugha gksuk ilan fd;k blfy, os vihy ds izØe ij lqus tkus ds vf/kdkj dk nkok ugha dj ldrsA lwpuk ls vfHkeqfDr nsus ds U;k;ky; ds foosdkf/kdkj ds iz;ksx ds fo#) i{kdkj fdlh Qk;ns dk nkok ugha dj ldrkA tc lwpuk ls vfHkx`ghr ns nh xbZ gS rc vihy [kkfjt ugha dh tk ldrh vkSj vihy U;k;ky; dks izfrdj dk ifjek.k mikarfjr djus ;k c<+kus dh ‘kfDr gSA 2000 , lh ts 719] 2001¼2½ ts ,y ts 135 rFkk , vkb vkj 2002 e-iz- 8 myVs x,A 2003¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 131 vuqeksfnrA
¿ iSjk 16À
¼2½ eksVj ;ku fu;e] 1994 ¼e-iz-½ && fu- 242¼3½ && eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 173 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 41 && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 173 ds v/khu vihy && lafgrk ds vk- 41 ds v/khu mica/k ykxw gkssaxsA ¿ iSjk 2À
¼3½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 41 fu- 14¼4½ && izR;FkhZ izFke ckj ds U;k;ky; esa u milatkr gqvk] u mlus viuk u;k irk Qkby fd;k && vihy esa ml ij rkehy ls vfHkx`ghr nh tk ldrh gSA ¿ iSjk 3À
¼4½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 41 fu- 14¼3½ && 14¼4½ rFkk 14¼5½ ¼lu~ 1976 sa ;Fkk vr%LFkkfir½ && mÌs‘; rFkk dkj.k && vihy ds fuiVkjs esa foyac ls cpuk gSA
Li"V gS fd vihy ds fuiVkjs ls foyac ls cpus ds fy, vuqHko fd;k x;k gks mu i{kdkjksa ij vihy Kkiu dh rkehy ls vfHkeqfDr nh tk ldrh gS tks izFke ckj ds U;k;ky ds le{k milatkr ugha gq, Fks vkSj ftUgksuas rkehy ds fy, irk Qkby ugha fd;k FkkA mifu;e ¼3½] ¼4½ vkSj ¼5½ bl mÌs‘; dh izkfIr gsrq fu;e 14 esa var%LFkkfir fd, tk jgs gSA bl izdkj] mu izR;fFkZ;ksa ij] tks izFke ckj ds U;k;ky; ds le{k milatkr ugha gq, ;k ftUgksaus izFke ckj ds U;k;ky; esa rkehy ds fy, irk ugha fn;k gS] lwpuk dh rkehy ls vfHkeqfDr iznku djus ds fy, U;k;ky; dks ‘kfDr;k¡] iznÙk dh xbZ gSA vkns‘k 6 fu;e 14 d esa izFke ckj ds U;k;ky; esa rkehy ds fy, fofgr iz:i esa irk nsus dk mica/k gSA ¿ iSjk 7 ,oa 8À
¼5½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 41 fu- 14¼4½ && izR;FkhZXk.k dks lwpuk tkjh dh tkuk && vihy dk vuq"kax gSA 2000 , lh ts 719 myVk x;kA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼6½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1939 && /kkjk 110?k && izfrdj esa o`f) ds fy, nkosnkjksa }kjk vihy && pkyd dh mis{kk ij vc fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk && pkyd ij lwpuk dh rkehy ls vfHkeqfDr nh xbZ && izfrdj dh jde c<+kbZ tk ldrh gSA , vkb vkj 1999 ,l lh 2977 vuqlfjrA 2003¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 131 vuqeksfnrA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼7½ dkuwu && fuoZpu ij nks n`f"Vdks.k laHko && fo/kku&eaMy dk mÌs‘; vkxs c<+kus okys n`f"Vdks.k dks vf/keku fn;k tkuk gksxkA 1999 , lh ts 781 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 13À
1. The following question is referred to Larger Bench for adjudication:
"Whether the appeal shall fail for non-service of notice or after dispensing with notice upon the respondents who were ex-parte before the Court of first instance or they have not submitted the address for service of notice ?"
2. It was contended that Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable, but Rule 242(3) of M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 clearly provides that provisions of Order XLI (41) of First Schedule of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall mutatis mutandis apply to appeals preferred to the High Court under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act.
3. To examine the controversy it will be appropriate to reproduce the provisions of Order XLI Rule 14(4) of Code of Civil Procedure.
"Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sub-rule (1), it shall not be necessary to serve notice of any proceeding incidental to an appeal on any respondent other than a person impleaded for the first time in the Appellate Court, unless he has appeared and filed an address for the service in the Court of first instance or has appeared in the appeal."
Under sub-rule (4) of Rule 14 of Order XLI it is provided that the Court may dispense with service of notice upon the respondent unless he has appeared and filed an address for the service in the Court of first instance or has appeared in the appeal.
4. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sushila and another v. Rajveer Singh and others (2000 ACJ 719) has held that dispensing with the service of notice relates to "proceeding incidental to an appeal". Division Bench held that sub-rule (4) of rule 14 is applicable only to the proceeding incidental to an appeal, since service of notice is not an incidental to an appeal, therefore, after dispensing with service upon the owner and driver appeal cannot continue because in the event of modification of award owner and driver will be responsible to pay the compensation and has dismissed the appeal where the Court has dispensed with service of notice upon the parties, who were ex-parte in the Court of first instance. The question which requires consideration is the meaning of words "proceeding incidental to an appeal".
5. Counsel for Insurance Company vehemently argued that since notices are dispensed with at the instance of appellant, it will be deemed that dispensing with notice to respondents is at the risk of the appellant and if he has chosen not to serve notice upon the respondents, who were ex-parte before the claims tribunal, he shall have to face consequences and in the cases where appeal cannot be decided without active presence of owner and driver of the vehicle, Division Bench has rightly dismissed the appeal and judgment of Sushila lays down the correct law. On the other hand another Division Bench in the case of Ramandeep Singh v. Mohd. Hasan in M.A. No. 1239/02 decided on 5.3.2003 at Indore [2003(1) MPWN 131] has taken a view that it is not necessary to serve notice upon the respondents, who were proceeded ex-parte before the Court of first instance. After dispensing with notice appeal can be heard and decided on merits and the party, who has chosen• to remain ex-parte and decided not to appear in the Court, cannot be compelled to appear in appeal to submit its claim or appeal cannot be adjourned for indefinite period on account of non-appearance or non-service of such ex-parte respondents.
6. To appreciate the meaning of words "proceeding incidental to an appeal" it will be useful to go through the provisions of different rules under Order XLI. Rule 11 of Order XLI confers the power upon the Appellate Court to dismiss the appeal without sending notice to lower Court. Rule 12 provides that unless the Appellate Court dismisses the appeal under Rule 11, it. shall fix a day for hearing of the appeal. Rule 14 provides that notice of the day fixed under Rule 12 shall be sent by the Appellate Court to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, and shall
