Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 55298
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, J
ASWHIN PAUL
– Appellant
Versus
JERISH XAVIER – Respondent
OP (MAC) 65 2022
A.R.NIMOD, M.A.AUGUSTINE
Claims under the Motor Vehicles Act by minors are not subject to Order 32 Rule 2 CPC; instead, specific Motor Vehicles Rules apply.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Motor Vehicles Claim - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 166; CPC - Order 32 Rule 2 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act for an accident, but the insurance company sought dismissal due to the petitioner's misrepresentation of age as a minor. The petition was challenged under CPC provisions regarding claims by minors.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the provisions of Order 32 Rule 2 CPC did not apply to the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner, who was a minor at the time of filing, eventually attained majority, making the objection by the insurance company invalid.
Issues: Does the provision of Order 32 Rule 2 CPC apply to claim petitions filed under the Motor Vehicles Act for minors?
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Order 32 Rule 2 CPC is not applicable in claims before the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal as per the specific provisions of the Motor Vehicles Rules, thus allowing the petitioner's claim to proceed.
Final Decision: The order of the MACT is set aside, and the original petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT
The original petition is directed against the order dated
24.05.2022 in I.A.No.2/2022 in O.P.(M.V.) 667/2009 preferred by the Respondent Insurance Company for dismissing the claim petition being not represented as per the procedure prescribed under order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure .
2. In respect of an accident occurred on 14.01.2018, petitioner preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act . At the time of filing of the petition, petitioner was 17 years and 8 months but mistakenly gave the age as 18 years. Respondents preferred I.A.No.2/2022 dated 24.05.2022 for rejection of the petition as per the provision of the order 32 Rule 2 of the CPC, as the claim was filed without being represented by a major.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application has been erroneously entertained by the MACT though it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain such application in view of the provisions of Rule 395 of the Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989 whereby only certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the proceedings to be tried under the Motor Vehicles Act in the Kerala are applicable and not all.
4. Learned counsel accepts notice and submitted that as per the provisions of order 32, no claim petition can be filed by or on behalf of the minor in the absence of any application accompanied by a leave or by the guardian. Age of the petitioner reveals that he was not 18 years and thus was minor at the time of filing of the petition. Attainment of majority at subsequent age would not overcome the objection of the Insurance company for seeking dismissal/rejection of the claim petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. It would be apt to reproduce Rule 395 of the Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989.
Procedure, 1908, shall, so far as may be, apply to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal.”
On perusal of the provisions extracted above, it is evident that the provisions of Order 32 Rule 2 in the case of a claim petition preferred before the MACT in respect of any injury case by a minor would not be applicable. Even otherwise, conceded position recorded is that the petitioner, during the pendency of the petition, had attained the age of majority. In my view, the application dated 30.04.2022 would not be maintainable in view of the aforementioned provisions.
For the reason aforementioned, the order impugned is set aside. Original Petition stands allowed. MACT is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
