BAIJANTI Vs. LAXMI PRASAD KANOUJIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 163(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order dated 03.05.2013 passed in Claim Case No. 91/12 by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur (M.R) whereby the claim case filed by the appellants/claimants has been dismissed as barred by provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. The appellants/claimants have filed earlier claim before the Tribunal under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Thereafter, considering the technicalities the claim petition was withdrawn and thereafter, claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed which has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal by impugned order on the ground that no liberty to file fresh claim petition has been obtained by the claimants and second claim is barred by provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 Sub Rule 3.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that he has prayed before the Tribunal for permission to withdraw the claim with liberty to file fresh claim but the order rejecting the earlier claim does not mention about such liberty even then the learned Tribunal is not justified in rejecting the claim as the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. are not applicable to the Claim Cases.

(3.) IN the present case the appellants/claimants have withdrawn the earlier claim petition by specifically mentioning that they want to withdraw the claim due to mistake of law which means that the claim may be filed again by curing the mistake. In such a case the court must be cautious enough to grant the liberty suo motu.