JAGJIT SINGH Vs. RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is directed against an order made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Delhi whereby the appellant's petition under section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) has been rejected on the ground that the petition does not disclose any cause of action. The order under appeal was made as far back as on 26.11.1964 and the appeal against the order was admitted on 1.3.1965. Ordinarily, such appeals are to be heard by a Single Bench but on 23 5.1968 the learned Chief Justice made an order that the appeal be heard by a Division Bench. * * * *

(2.) The appellant met with an accident with truck No. RJL 8635 driven by Mr. Ram Chander (respondent No.l) which was owned by Mr. Lal Chand (respondent No. 2) and was insured with respondent No. 3. As a result of the accident, the appellant received certain injuries on 24.10.1962. On 24.12.1962 he filed a petition under section 110A of the Act claiming Rs. 25,000.00 as compensation for the injuries received by him in the said accident. The petition was opposed and it was pleaded inter alia, that it did not disclose any cause of action inasmuch as it was not alleged that the accident had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. On this plea the Tribunal framed the following preliminary issue :-

(3.) When the case was fixed for arguments on this issue, the appellant filed an application for amendment of the petition under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 Civil Procedure Code stating that he had given in the petition all necessary particulars of the accident but owing to inadvertence he had omitted to mention the allegation that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of the accident. He therefore sought leave to add those words in the amended petition. This application was rejected by the Tribunal with the observation that the principle of liability in torts when death or injury had been caused to a person was negligence or failure to take requisite amount of care required by law and in the absence of any statutory provision fixing liability irrespective of negligence one had to turn to the Law of Torts according to which negligence in causing accident was essential to hold the negligent person liable for damages. The Tribunal further held that although it had the right to allow an amendment of the petition, in the present case the amendment would cause irreparable injury to the other party because it would allow the appellant to put up a fresh claim in respect of a cause of action which since the institution of the proceedings had become barred by time.