The Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation; therefore, Tribunals should adopt a pragmatic approach and allow the impleadment of necessary parties rather than dismissing claims on hyper-technical grounds of non-joinder.

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant aggrieved by the award dated 18.01.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1774 of 2013 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–cum–Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.03.2006 at about 2.30 p.m., the deceased, son of the appellant, while proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 9 ED T/R 9789, met with a fatal accident when a tractor bearing No.MH 23 B 2242, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle from behind, resulting in his instantaneous death. The appellant/claimant, being the mother of the deceased, filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1, owner of the motorcycle, remained ex parte, while respondent No.2–Insurance Company filed its counter denying liability inter alia contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the tractor driver and that the owner and insurer of the tractor were not made parties to the proceedings. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of evidence, dismissed the claim petition holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the tractor driver and that the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely, the owner and insurer of the tractor. Assailing the said order of dismissal, the appellant-claimant filed the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties without affording an opportunity to the claimant to implead the owner and insurer of the offending tractor. It is further contended that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act being beneficial in nature, the Tribunal ought to have adopted a liberal approach and permitted the claimant to rectify the defect instead of non-suiting her.

5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company supported the findings of the Tribunal and contended that in the absence of necessary parties, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition.

6. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing No.MH 23 B 2242 and not due to the motorcycle. The said finding is based on the police records, including FIR and charge sheet, and there is no serious dispute with regard to the said aspect.

7. However, the crucial question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition solely on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, namely, the owner and insurer of the tractor.

8. It is to be noted that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation intended to provide just compensation to the victims of motor accidents or their dependents. The approach of the Tribunal, therefore, ought to be pragmatic and justice-oriented rather than hyper-technical. In the present case, though the Tribunal observed that the driver of the tractor was impleaded as respondent No.3, the petition against him was dismissed for default and the owner and insurer of the tractor were not brought on record.

9. In the considered opinion of this Court, instead of dismissing the claim petition, the Tribunal ought to have granted an opportunity to t