Back
1997 (1) JLJ 74
J.G. Chitre, J.
Chandrakant v. Mukesh and others
M.A. No. 36 of 1995; against the award passed by Shri Indrajeet Singh, Addl. Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore, passed in Claim Case No. 109 of 1993;
Decided on 6.12.1995.
(2) Legal maxims – action personatis moritum cum persona -- a personal claim dies with person -- cannot bar right to sue claim by the legal representative.
Maxim cannot bar the right to sue claim by the LRs. of the deceased claimant because the maxim has been criticized even in the country of its origin as unjust, obscure in its origin, inaccurate in its expression and often resulting in grave injustice. Indian Courts have generally taken a view that the maxim should not be applied as a part of our law except, of course, where specifically en grafted in a statute and that the principles of justice, equity and good conscience should be followed. 1988 ACJ 417 relied on. [Para 4
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 166 (1) -- applications for compensation under -- are filed in representative capacity -- if claimant dies his legal representation can continue the application. 1968 JLJ 1013 and 1972 ACJ 416 relied on. [Para 4
(4) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 166 (1) and 173 -- Civil P.C., 1908 - O.22 Rr. 3 (2) and 4 (3) -- application for compensation under S. 166 (1) or appeal under S. 173 of the Act -- provisions of abatement contained under O. 22 Rr. 3 (2) and 4 (3) are not applicable -- application or appeal does not abate -LRs may be substituted at any time. 1968 JLJ 1013 relied on. [Paras 4 & 6
(5) Tort – suit for compensation on ground of defamation – if plaintiff dies before decree is passed LRs cannot continue the suit -- if decree is passed before death LRs acquire the right as it becomes estate of the deceased. 1986 ACJ 440 = AIR 1986 SC 411 followed. [Para 5
(6) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 173 -- appeal for enhancement of compensation for injuries received by appellant -- can be continued by his LRs after his death. [Para 9
¼1½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 166¼1½ ,oa ¼3½ rFkk 173 && e`rd&vihykFkhZ ds LFkku ij fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa ds izfrLFkkiu esa foyac && ekQ fd;k tk ldrk gS D;ksafd /kkjk 166 ¼1½ ds v/khu nkok vthZ Qkby djus ds fy, Ng ekl dh ifjlhek fofgr djus okyk /kkjk 166 ¼3½ ds mica/k gVk;k tk pqdk gSA
¼2½ fof/kd lw= && ^dkjZokbZ dk O;fDrxr vf/kdkj O;fDr dh e`R;q ds lkFk lekIr gks tkrk gS* && O;fDrxr nkok O;fDr dh e`R;q ds lkFk lekIr gks tkrk gS && fof/kd izfrfuf/k }kjk nkos dk okn ykus ds vf/kdkj dks oftZr ugha dj ldrkA
lw= e`rd ds fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa }kjk nkos dk okn ykus ds vf/kdkj dks oftZr ugha dj ldrk D;ksafd lw= dh Lo;a mlds mn~xe ds ns‘k esa Hkh] vU;k;iw.kZ] mn~xe esa fujk‘kktud] vfHkO;fDr esa v‘kq) rFkk vf/kdka‘kr% ?kksj vU;k; esa ifj.kkfer ds :i esa] fuank dh xbZ gSA Hkkjrh; U;k;ky;ksa }kjk lk/kkj.kr% ;g :[k viuk;k x;k gS fd lw= dks viuh fof/k ds Hkkx esa ykxw ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,] flok; blds] fuLlansg] tgk¡ og fdlh dkuwu esa fofufnZ"Vr% jksfir gks rFkk tgk¡ U;k; ds fl)kar] lkE;k rFkk ‘kq) var%dj.k dk vuqlj.k ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,A 1988 , lh ts 417 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 4
¼3½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 166¼1½ && ds v/khu izfrdj ds vkosnu && izfrfuf/k dh gSfl;r esa Qkby fd, tkrs gSa && ;fn nkosnkj dh e`R;q gks tkrh gS rc mldk fof/k izfrfuf/k vkosnu dks pkyw j[k ldrk gSA 1968 ts ,y ts 1013 rFkk 1972 , lh ts 416 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 4
¼4½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 166¼1½ rFkk 173 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk- 3 fu- 3 ¼2½ rFkk 4 ¼3½ && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 166 ¼1½ ds v/khu izfrdj dk vkosnu vFkok /kkjk 173 ds v/khu vihy && vk- 22 fu- 3¼2½ rFkk 4¼3½ ds v/khu varfoZ"V mi‘keu ds mica/k ykxw ugha gS && vkosnu vFkok vihy dk mi‘keu ugh gksrk gS && fof/kd izfrfuf/k fdlh Hkh le; izfrLFkkfir fd, tk ldrs gSaA 1968 ts ,y ts 1013 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 4 ,oa 6
¼5½ vid`R; && ekugkfu ds vk/kkj ij izfrdj ds fy, okn && ;fn fMØh ikfjr gksus ds iwoZ oknh dh e`R;q gks tkrh gS rc fof/kd izfrfuf/k okn pkyw ugha j[k ldrs && ;fn fMØ e`R;q ds iwoZ ikfjr gqbZ gS rc fof/kd izfrfuf/k vf/kdkj vftZr dj ysrs gSa D;ksafd og e`rd dh laink cu tkrh gSA 1986 , lh ts 440 ¾ , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh 411 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 5
¼6½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 173 && vihykFkhZ dks gqbZ {kfr;ksa ds izfrdj dh o`f) ds fy, vihy && mldh e`R;q ds i‘pkr~ mlds fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa }kjk pkyw j[kh tk ldrh gSA ¿ iSjk 9
J.G. Chitre, J. -- 1. Shri S. Patwa for appellant. Shri S.V. Dandvate for respondent No.4. Other respondents are absent. None present for them.
2. This application has been preferred for bringing the legal representatives of deceased claimant on record. During the course of argument it has been noticed by the learned counsel for the L.Rs. of deceased claimant that there has been delay in making the prayer for bringing the L.Rs. on record. He prays for condoning the said delay in view of recent amendment in provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act for convenience). Shri Dandvate, counsel for respondent No.4 also admitted that there has been recent amendment in the provisions of M.V. Act whereby time limit of six months which was in existence previously has been removed in respect of filing of fresh application for getting the compensation. There cannot be any debate on the point that provisions of M.V. Act are benevolent and specially brought in force for the purpose of avoiding delay in getting the relief from civil Courts by filing other suitable remedies. Thus, keeping in view the benevolent aspect of the enactment and the recent amendment by which the previously indicated time limit of six months has been removed, I hereby condone the delay of nine months by keeping in view the special circumstances of this matter only.
3. The second point which has been agitated is whether the appeal arising out of a controversy created by the award passed by the Tribunal stands abated on account of death of claimant or not. Shri Patwa has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Chuharmal Issardas & others v. Haji Wali Mohammed & others (1968 JLJ 1013 = 1968 ACJ 391), judgment of Bombay High Court in the matter of Maimuna Begum and others v. Taju and others (1988 ACJ 417) and judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of New Suraj Transport Co. & others v. Ruby General Ins. Co. & others (1972 ACJ 416). He canvassed that provisions of Order XXII C.P.C. are not applicable to appeals arising out of the controversy caused by the award passed by the Tribunal in motor accident claim cases. Shri Dandvate, counsel appearing for respondent No.4 insurance company placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Malapurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan v. Thekittil Geopalankutty Nair (AIR 1986 SC 411 = 1986 ACJ 440).
4. In the matter of Chuharmal v. Haji Wali Mohammed (supra) Division Bench of this Court held that provisions relating to abatement contained in Order XXII of C.P.C. have no application to these proceedings (proceedings in respect of claim preferred by claimant before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal). The Division Bench of Bombay High Court held in Maimuna Begum's case (supra) that the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona cannot bar the right to sue claim by the L.Rs. of the deceased claimant because the maxim has been criticized even in the country of its origin as unjust, obscure in its origin inaccurate in its expression and often resulting in grave injustice. Indian Courts have generally taken a view that the maxim should not be applied as a part of our law except, of course, where specifically engrafted in a statute and that the principles of justice, equity and good conscience should be followed. Punjab & Haryana High Court observed in New Suraj Transport Co. case (supra) that a reading of section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act would show that the applications for compensation are filed in a representative capacity. In case any person who has filed the claim dies the proceedings started in a representative capacity do not abate. If the other claimants are already on record, they can continue the proceedings. If the deceased was the sole claimant, his legal representatives or the persons for whose benefit the claim had been filed, could be brought on the record.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Melepurath Sankunni (supra) held that the quest
SupremeToday
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
