Sonu vs Babu And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 8691 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

                                  Reserved  on 20.7.2021
 
                                  Delivered  on 27.7.2021
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 150 of 2018
 

 
Appellant :- Sonu
 
Respondent :- Babu And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Nigamendra Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard Shri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears on behalf of the respondents.

This First Appeal from Order has been preferred against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.16, Meerut in M.A.C. petition No.395 of 2015 dismissing the claim petition of the claimant- appellant on the ground that he had earlier filed M.A.C. Petition No. 997 of 2013 regarding the same cause of action.

The brief facts of the case are that on 20.8.2013 claimant-appellant was hit by Truck No. H.R.55-1155, which resulted into injuries in right leg. His right leg was amputated below the knee and he suffered other serious injuries. Claimant-appellant was 19 years of age at the time of accident. He has become permanently disabled. Hence the claim petition was filed claiming amount of Rs.22,50,000/- with 18 % interest towards compensation of injuries suffered by the claimant-appellant.

The opposite parties filed their written statements, stating, interalia, that earlier claimant-appellant filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 997 of 2013 which was withdrawn by him on 21.4.2015 without liberty to file fresh petition, hence this claim petition deserves to be dismissed.

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed his claim petition relying upon Order XXIII, Rule 1(4) C.P.C.,hence this appeal.

Before proceeding further it would be relevant to go through section 169 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 which is given as under :-

"169. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals.--

(1) In holding any inquiry under section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.

(2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

(3) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Claims Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claim for compensation, choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry.

4.For the purpose of enforcement of its award,the Claims Tribunal shall also have all the powers of a Civil Court in the Execution of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (5 of 1908),as if the award were a decree for the payment of money passed by such court in a civil suit."

In the present appeal, the controversy is whether claim-petition of claimant-appellant was barred by law being second claim petition after withdrawal of the first claim petition.A perusal of section 169 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shows that Claims Tribunal decides the claim petition by following summary procedure.The claims tribunal has been vested with all the powers of civil court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of the witnesses, and of compelling the discovery, and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed.Further Claims Tribunal has all the powers of civil court in the execution of decree under C.P.C. as if award of the tribunal was decree for payment of money. It is clear that provisions of Order XXIII C.P.C. regarding withdrawal and adjustment of suit have not been applied to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Order XXIII is regarding suit and a petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act is not a suit for the purposes of Order XXIII C.P.C.

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Kandapazha Nadar and others Vs. Chitraganiammal and others in 2007(2) JCLR, 228(SC) wherein Apex Court held that order of withdrawal of the suit without any permission to file the fresh suit does not constitutes a decree.

This court has gone through the aforesaid judgement but it is not of any help in deciding the present case.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further relied upon the judgement of this court in First Appeal From Order No. 2723 of 2006, Tahsin Vs. Yogesh Kumar and another. This judgement is regarding dismissal of the claim petition being barred by section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found that claimant first approached the Workman Compensation Commissioner and when Commissioner found him not to be a workman within the meaning of statute his claim petition was dismissed. Subsequently he approached Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which held that claim-petition was barred under section 167 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

This judgment has no application to the present case,since claimant-appellant had approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal earlier and withdrawn his petition and without disclosing the same filed another claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal which has been dismissed.

In the present case the Motor Accident Claim petition was admittedly withdrawn by the claimant -appellant and then new claim petition was filed. Perusal of the claim petition shows that there was no disclosure therein that claimant had earlier filed a claim petition before the tribunal. Even in his statement before the court and in the cross examination he did not stated a word about filing of the earlier claim petition and why it was withdrawn by him and second petition was filed .In the documentary evidence filed before tribunal also neither the copy of the earlier claim petition no. 997 of 2013 was filed nor copy of the order was filed. It is also true that opposite parties have also not brought on record any such document. However fact remains that there was no denial by claimant-appellant that he had not filed claim petition no.997 of 2013 earlier. There is nothing on record as to under what circumstances and why the earlier claim petition was withdrawn by the claimant-appellant and he had to file the second one.

From perusal of section 169 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, there is no application of Order XXIII C.P.C. found to the procedure before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.The filing of second claim petition after withdrawing the first claim petition by the claimant without permission to file second petition would not be barred. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a socially beneficial legislation and should be construed liberally.

The judicial approach regarding prosecution of claim petitions under Motor Vehicles Act should be liberal. The dismissal of claim petition otherwise than on merits, cannot be a bar for entertaining second petition, irrespective of the fact whether the claim petition was withdrawn or dismissed for want of prosecution.

In the light of the legal position discussed above the second petition filed by claimant could not have been dismissed on the technical ground of want of leave of Court while withdrawing the first claim petition. The provision of Order XXIII, Rule 1 C.P.C have no application to such proceedings before Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal.

However claimant is required to prove that there were genuine reasons for withdrawing the first claim petition, like some mistake in drafting of claim petition effecting merit of claim, withdrawal of the claim petition on the promise of compromise by the opposite parties which was not later honoured, withdrawal of the petition on account of some coercion or threat from opposite parties or any third party, withdrawal of the petition on account of any reason, which in the opinion of the court was bonafide. It is not open for the claimant to file claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and withdraw it at will and thereafter file second claim petition without disclosing reason for withdrawal of the first claim petition. It is also not permissible for the claimant to conceal from the tribunal, the reason for withdrawal of the first claim petition. The claimant is required to prove his bonafide before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal when he seeks indulgence of the tribunal to entertain second claim petition for the same cause of action/relief.

Consequently, the award dated 20.11.2017 passed in M.A.C. Petition No. 395 of 2015 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Meerut, Court No. 16, Meerut is hereby set aside. The case is remanded to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Meerut for decision of claim petition of claimant-appellants on its merit. However, the claimant-appellants will prove his bona fide in filing second claim petition and will bring on record the reasons for withdrawal of first claim petition, which shall be considered by the tribunal before proceeding with the case afresh.

The appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 27.07.2021

Atul kr. sri.