GURBAX KAUR Vs. KANWALJIT SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unsuccessful appellant/claimant has preferred the instant appeal, feeling dissatisfied against the order dated March 02, 2009 and award dated March 17, 2009, passed in MACT No. 62 of 2005/2007, captioned as "Gurbax Kaur v. Kawaljit Singh @ Mor and others" whereby claim petition preferred by her under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, "the Act") seeking compensation on account of death of her son Gurmukh Singh in a road side accident, was dismissed. It is an undisputed fact that during pendency of claim petition, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC was moved by the claimant, to implead Sajjan Singh, owner of the offending vehicle No. PB-02Q-9676, as respondent No. 2 Gurmukh Singh, had sold away the said vehicle registered in his name, about 10 years prior to the accident. The insurance policy was also issued by the insurance company in the name of Sajjan Singh. The said fact was also admitted by Gurmukh Singh-respondent No. 2 when appeared in the witness-box. But vide order dated March 02, 2009, the aforesaid application was dismissed by observing that claim petition is at its penultimate and even respondents have closed their evidence. Further, it was observed that allowing of application at that stage would amount to reopening of the case but the reasons assigned by the ld. Tribunal while dismissing the application are erroneous. There is no provision in law that such an application cannot be allowed if the proceedings are at its final stage. Moreover, rules and procedures are meant for the advancement of justice to the parties and to adjudicate upon the matter in controversy judiciously and effectively, and not to scuttle down the rights of any of the parties. Thus, mere fact that respondents had closed their evidence or that the case was at its penultimate, is no ground to dismiss the application. Hence, the said order is required to be set aside whereby application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, moved by the claimant be treated as stands allowed.

(2.) It would also be pertinent to mention here that though the ld. Tribunal has recorded the findings to the effect that Gurmukh Singh had died in a road accident on May 14, 2005, caused by respondent No. 1 while driving Mini Bus bearing registration No. PB-02Q-9676. Yet dismissed the claim petition holding that since claimant has failed to prove respondent No. 2 to be the registered owner of the offending vehicle, in question, therefore, the question of assessment of the compensation at this stage, does not arise.

(3.) The dismissal of the application is also not legally justified. It appears that ld. Magistrate has acted in a hurried manner to dispose of the claim petition, first by dismissing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and then by making the said ground, dismissed the claim petition, which is not the intention of the beneficial legislation. No proper opportunity can be said to have been afforded to the claimant to prove her claim.