PIRISKA ROZARIO Vs. FORD FOUNDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule raises some important questions. It arises out of a proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) The points for consideration are whether the tribunal under the Act, hearing claim petitions, has power to order substitution of the legal heirs and representatives of a deceased claimant and. If so, under what circumstances and with what effect.

(3.) The Instant proceeding was started as a claim, proceeding by one Augustine Paul Rozario, who filed this claim case for compensation on account of Injuries, sustained by him in a motor accident, which took place on March 2, 1965, in Ballygunge Circular Road. During the pendency of the said claim case, the above claimant died on October 5. 1965. This fact was brought to the notice of the tribunal below on November 2, 1965, by the learned Advocate for the deceased claimant and he prayed for time to file a petition for substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of the said deceased. That petition was originally rejected by the tribunal below by its order No. 3, dated November 2, 1965, on the ground that on the death of Rozario his cause-of-action did not survive and so no question of substitution of his heirs did arise. It was also held that the claim case, in the circumstances, had abated. Against that order, the present petitioners, who claimed to be the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Augustine Paul Rozaria, moved this Hon'ble Court in revision and, eventually, that Rule was made absolute- The Tribunal's order, complained against in the Rule, namely, the order, dated November 2, 1965, was set aside and the case was sent back to the Tribunal below with permission to the present petitioners to file an application for substitution and with direction to the tribunal to consider the said prayer for substitution on merits in accordance with law.