AMRITI DEVI Vs. KAMAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY, the facts of this case are in a narrow compass. The husband of petitioner No. 1, Amriti Devi, was a driver with Bus No. HPK-3333 owned by respondent No. 1. While at Dalhousie during winter season, it did not start due to cold with the result that the deceased burnt some material underneath the same in order to start the vehicle. During this process, the deceased caught fire and sustained injuries. He was treated at Govt. Hospital, Dalhousie and thereafter shifted to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Chandigarh, where he ultimately expired.

(2.) THE claimants, the widow and the minor children (five in number), moved a petition claiming compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Dharamshala. Sh. R. K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in this Court, submits that when this case was fixed for reconciliation, it come out that the Tribunal at Dharamshala had no jurisdiction to decide the matter since by that time a separate Tribunal for Chamba had been established. As a result of this, the Tribunal returned the claim petition with a separate endorsement under O.7, R. 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure whereupon the claim petition was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chamba.

(3.) IT appears that this rule was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal which resulted not only in the miscarriage of justice but also harassment to the claimants who are from a very poor strata of society with practically nothing to depend upon. The Tribunals should not, in such like cases, take a very hyper-technical view of the matters of procedure since they, sometimes, cause immense inconvenience and prejudice to the claimants for nothing. Approach has always to be to do substantial justice to the parties which is the sole concern of the courts of justice.