Jharkhand High Court
Ramsheela Devi & Ors vs Puran Chandra Swasi on 23 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 304 of 2020
......
Ramsheela Devi & Ors. ...... Appellants
Versus
Puran Chandra Swasi ......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
......
For the Appellants : Mr. Pradipto Mitra, Advocate
For the Respondents :
-----
06/Dated: 23/03/2021.
Perused the report submitted by the learned Principal District &
Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.
From the report, it appears that G.R. Case has already been
disposed of in terms of judgment of acquittal.
So far the claim application is concerned (which has been filed
under Section 166 of the MV Act), it appears that the proceeding was
ex-parte against O.P. No.1 namely Puran Chandra Swasi the owner
cum driver of the offending motorcycle bearing registration no.JH-
01C-0291.
From perusal of the report, it appears that owner cum driver of
the offending vehicle, Puran Chandra Swasi was an employee of UCIL.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is surprised to
know, that when a vehicle is not insured on the date of accident, which
belongs to an employee of UCIL (Public Sector Units/Government
Servant), how the case has been fixed ex-parte only on the basis of
registered notice issued on 08.02.2019, as the service report has not
been returned and the court below has considered the same to be valid
under Order V rule 9 CPC without taking recourse under Order V rule
20 CPC.
In such cases, where a person is evading appearance in a
beneficial legislation like Motor Vehicle Act, Workmen Compensation
Act etc., the court should instead of considering service of notice to be
valid mechanically, ought to have considered for issuance of process
under Order V rule 20 or inform the employer by issuing summons by
the Court to procure the attendance of such owners.
In the present case the claimants are the appellants. They have
not been given any fruits of the beneficial legislation, awarded under
Section 166 of the MV Act. If this Court proceeds on such premises, the
object of the legislation will be frustrated by not satisfying the award.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, in such matters the court
should take all endeavors for appearance of the owner of the vehicle.
Accordingly, this Court directs the office to issue notice upon
owner, under ordinary process to be executed through the Civil Court,
which shall be served within a period of four weeks, so as to procure
the appearance and attendance of Puran Chandra Swasi, S/o
Maheshwar Swasi, by occupation service, resident of A-64/506, UCL
Colony, Jadugora, Town Jadugora, Post Office Jadugora and Police
Station Jadugora District Singbhum, East (Owner cum Driver of the
offending vehicle Motorcycle bearing registration No.JH-01C-0291).
This Court will also consider, in the light of the judgment passed
by the Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Co.
Ltd., reported in 2010 (2) SCC 607 that in the cases where the vehicle was
not insured or where the owner is absconding and the auction of the
vehicle will not be sufficient to satisfy the award, then what remedy
should be taken for indemnifying the award to the claimants?
The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur is directed to look into the matter, so that appearance of
the owner may be secured in the instant appeal.
Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX to the
court below as well as learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
R.S.
