KAMALA Vs. SASADHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under S.110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order of the Second Motor Accidents the Claims Tribunal rejecting the claim of the appellant. The appellant filed an application claiming compensation on account of the death of her husband Ratnakar Behera and it was alleged in the application that the death occurred on account of the accident caused by Bus No. ORD 3521 at 10 a.m. at Cuttack-Sambalpur National Highway. In the prescribed form provided for under the relevant Rules as against Column 18, the appellant gave her name and address and as against column 22 which provides for the names of other legal representatives of the injured and their relationship, no mention was made, but in Column 23, where any other information that may be necessary or helpful for disposal of the claim is to be given, it is mentioned "separate sheet attached" and in that sheet it has been clearly stated that the deceased had four sons and two daughters. Rest of the facts in the separate sheet are not necessary to be discussed in view of the points arising for consideration. After the application was admitted for enquiry and notice was issued, the owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company entered appearance and filed their objections to the claim petition. The hearing of the case was fixed to 24-4-1985 before the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, two petitions were filed on behalf of the claimant, one for a direction to produce the insurance policy of the vehicle and another to enable the claimant to make other legal representatives added as claimants. The Tribunal passed an order on that date to the effect that there were other legal representatives and hence addition of the parties was necessary and directed to take necessary steps by 3-5-1985. On 3-5-1985, it was adjourned to 3-6-1985. On 3-6-1985, an application under O.6, R.17, Civil P.C., was filed on behalf of the claimant wherein the prayer for addition of other legal representatives as claimants had been made. The Tribunal by an order dated 24-7-1985 rejected the said application. The hearing of the case was thereafter fixed to 15-10-1985. On 15-10-1985, on behalf of the claimant and application was filed to examine the claimant on commission since the claimant was bedridden and was not in a position to come and depose before the Tribunal. Another application was also filed on behalf of the other legal representatives to be added as claimants and this application was purported to have been filed under O.1, R.10, Civil P.C.

(2.) Respondent No 1 also filed an application under 0.11, R.1, Civil P.C., to serve an interrogatory on respondent No. 2 but was not present when that application was taken up for hearing nor had taken any steps in that regard. The learned Tribunal rejected the claimant's application to be examined on commission by the impugned order dated 15-10-1985 on a finding that O.26 of the Civil P.C. has not been made applicable and the Tribunal is a Civil Court for limited purpose. So far as the application filed by the other legal representatives to be added as claimants is concerned, the said application was also rejected on the ground that O.1, R.10 of the Civil P.C., has no application and also on the ground that earlier by order dated 24-7-1985, similar application which had been filed under O.6, R.17, Civil P.C., by the claimant was rejected by the First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to allow another application filed on behalf of the legal representatives. Thereafter as the claimant had not taken any further steps nor any witness was present, the Tribunal rejected the claim on a finding that the claimant had failed to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus. Against this order of rejection, the claimant has approached this Court in appeal.

(3.) Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the appellant, raises two contentions in assailing the order of the Tribunal : (i) The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the scope and nature of an enquiry contemplated under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and committed an error in rejecting the claimant's application to be examined on commission merely on a finding that O.26 of the Civil P.C. has not been made applicable; and (ii) The Tribunal also committed serious illegality in not allowing the application of the admitted legal representatives of the deceased to be added as claimants notwithstanding the claimant's application for amendment having been rejected, since under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is the duty of the Tribunal to find out as to who are the persons to whom, the compensation has to be paid.