AMBUJ Vs. AMIR AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is placed for admission under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it has been heard in presence of learned Counsel appearing for all the contesting parties.

(2.) THIS appeal has been made by the claimant on the ground that her claim petition has been rejected only on flimsy ground that husband of the appellant, who filed the claim petition, is not authorized agent of the injured. However, we have gone through Section 166 (1) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and we find that an application for compensation can be filed by any agent duly authorized by the persons injured. A question arose whether without any appropriate supporting document the husband can be said to be an authorized agent or not. In this context, we have gone through two Division Bench judgements of different High Courts reported in 1987 ACJ 551 (Parmanand Thakur Vs. Commissioner, Coal Mines Welfare Organisation) and AIR 1964 Punjab 235 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. New Delhi and another Vs. Punjab Roadways, Ambala City and others). Upon going through both the judgements one aspect becomes very clear that the Act or the comparable earlier Act i.e. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 do not prescribe that authorized person means a person expressly authorized or that the authority should be in writing, but it includes a person having implied authority to claim compensation for the one, who is injured in the accident. It has also been recorded in one of such judgements that it is, however, not necessary to express a definite opinion on this point as we find that subsequently the defect was remedied by substituting the name of original applicant with the leave of the tribunal. Last part is also factually similar with the present one when we find that the appeal has also been filed by the brother of the injured supporting the contents of the husband and the Vakalatnama has been filed by the injured herself by putting thumb impression, which was also verified by her brother. But we express a definite view with regard to the observation, which is made earlier, that the agent duly authorized by the person injured does not necessarily mean that the written authority or express authority will be necessary in all such cases. If the Court holds so, the Court should have firm on the issue otherwise it has to be treated to be hypertechnical one, as held hereunder. Hence, we set aside the impugned judgement and award dated 29th November, 2003 passed by the tribunal concerned and send the matter back to the tribunal for the purpose of disposal in merit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Thus, the appeal stands disposed of. However, no order is passed as to costs.