TRILOKI NATH BHARGAVA Vs. JASWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAJOR Triloki Nath Bhargava appellant No. 1 was driving his car No. RJL -3436 at about 10-50 A. M. on April 27, 1964, while going from Jullundur to his village Daroli Kalan in that district. His car ran from behind into the bicycle of late Ganesha Singh, a retired Junior Commissioned Officer, aged about 59 years, when the latter was pushing his bike in the kutcha portion on the left side of the road. The car was being driven by the first appellant himself. The car could not stop for several yards after the impact, the deceased was dragged with it. and sustained as many as 18 injuries, including several fractures. The first appellant took Ganesha Singh in his car to the hospital where the latter succumbed to his injuries. Jaswant Kaur respondent No. 1, widow of the deceased, filed a claim for Rs. 30,000.00 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 19391 (hereinafter called the Act) in the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Puniab. Since the car of the first appellant was insured with the second appellant, she preferred the claim against both the present appellants. She also impleaded as pro forma respondents the mother, the daughter and sons of the deceased, and claimed that they did not contest her right to receive the compensation which might be allowed to her. The claim was contested by the owner and insurer of the car. that is by both the appellants. From the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed the following three issues:--

(2.) NOT satisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the present appellants preferred F. A. O. 34 of 1967, against the said award to this Court on February 21, 1967. On getting notice of the appeal and within 30 days thereafter the first respondent filed on May 27, 1967, cross-objections for enhancement of the quantum of compensation from Rs. 6,364.00 to Rupees 30,000/ -. Suri. J. (as he then was) by his judgment and order, dated April 23, 1971, dismissed the appeal of the present appellants, but allowed the cross-objections of the first respondent and enhanced the amount of the award in her favour to Rs. 12,000/ -. The driver-owner of the car and its insurer have preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the cross-objections. The first respondent has not preferred any further appeal in the matter of the quantum of damages.

(3.) IN support Of his first contention Mr. Suri has relied on the judgments of the Gauhati High Court in the Motor Owners Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Srimati Renuka Roy, AIR 1973 Gauhati 142 and Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nani Choudhury, 1974 Acc CJ 269 (Gauhati), as also on the judgment of a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in A. Rahiman v. M. Webber, 1973 Cri LJ 1682 (Mys ). The earliest of these judgments is of the Mysore High Court in the case of A. Rahiman (supra ). The learned Judges held in that case that the Motor Vehicles Act is a complete code by itself, and, therefore, the provisions of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be brought to bear on matters under the Act. They followed the earlier judgment of their Court in Union of India v. Narasivappa, (1970) 1 Mys LJ 319. The argument advanced on behalf of the claimant on the authority of the decision of the Madhva Pradesh High Court in Manjula Devi v. Manjusri Raha. 1968 Acc CJ 1 (Madh Pra), to the effect that when once an appeal is preferred to the High Court, the usual practice and rules of procedure applying to the appeals to be dealt with by the High Court should become applicable, and, therefore, a right to file cross-objections would accrue in such appeal was repelled. In adopting the view which prevailed with the learned Judges of the Mysore High Court they also differed from the decision of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Transport Undertaking v. Raj Kumari, 1972 Acc CJ