CALCUTTA INSURANCE LTD Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for revision of the order dated the 29th of January, 1970, of Shri Pritam Singh Pattar, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar, directing that the son (respondent No. 1) and daughter (respondent No. 2) of Shri Kartar Singh who had filed before him an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as " the Act") claiming an amount of Rs. 20,000 from respondents Nos. 3 and 4, as well as the petitioner before me on account of physical and mental pain suffered by him (Kartar Singh) as a result of the injuries which he sustained in an accident on the 21st May, 1967, at about 6. 30 p. m. , be brought on the record as his (Kartar Singh's) legal representatives after his death. Respondent No. 3 is the proprietor and respondent No. 4 is the driver of truck No. PNO-2195 which was involved in the accident while the petitioner is the insurance company with which the truck was under insurance on the said date.

(2.) KARTAR Singh above mentioned died on the 16th October, 1969, while his application under Section 110-A of the Act was pending with the Tribunal, who accepted the prayer of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to be allowed to continue the application as his legal representatives. Reliance in this connection was placed by the Tribunal on Chuhar Mal Ishar Das v. Haji Wali Mohd. in which it was held that Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply to an application under Section 110-A of the Act, that, such an application did not abate on the death of its makers and that an application of that type was of a "representative character".

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the proposition that Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not govern applications envisaged by Section 110-A of the Act, His contention, however, is that there is no question of such an application being of a " representative character " if it is made by a person on account of injuries not resulting in his death. After hearing him I am of the opinion that this contention merits acceptance and that Chuhar Mal's case, [1968] Accident Claims Journal 391. does not apply to the facts with which we are here concerned. In that case the father of a person who had died in an accident had made an application under Section 110-A of the Act claiming compensation for himself as also on behalf of his wife (the mother of the deceased ). The mother died during the pendency of the proceedings and it was held that there was no question of abatement of the cause as a result of her death.