SAVITRI Vs. MACT CUM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by claimants against order dated 30.03.2003 of learned Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu, in MAC Case No.112/2000, by which it has dismissed their claim petition on premise that earlier claim petition filed by them on same subject matter claiming same relief was dismissed as not pressed and therefore the second claim petition on same subject matter would not be maintainable.

(2.) Learned counsel for appellants has argued that there was no adjudication as far as merits of the case are concerned. Claimants did not press their claim petition, filed earlier, and same was dismissed because a compromise was arrived at between the parties. Pursuant to the compromise, vehicle owner agreed to pay to claimants a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac). The claimants even admitted the factum of compromise in their statements in the trial of driver of offending vehicle, in criminal case. However, subsequently the owner of the vehicle turn back from the promise and did not pay the agreed amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to claimants. Learned counsel argued that Rule 10.2 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, has made a specific provision of Civil procedure Code, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC'), applicable to proceedings before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, however, Section 11 of the CPC has not been applied as such. Even otherwise, there can be no question of any res judicata as there was no adjudication on merits of claim petition. The claimants thus got it dismissed owing to aforenoted reasons. Learned counsel, in support of his argument, cited a judgment of this Court in Smt. Vimla Devi and Another Vs. Rajendra Kumar and Others, 2003 1 TAC 157 and submitted that in that case the first claim petition was dismissed due to absence of counsel and claimants filed a fresh claim petition rather filing an application for restoration, which was rejected as time barred. This court held that after deletion of limitation clause from Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting subsequent claim petition as not maintainable. Since, no limitation was prescribed for filing claim petition under statute, subsequent claim was not barred, more so when no part of Order VII, CPC was made applicable before the claim Tribunal. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Tribunal for adjudication of the matter on merits.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent, owner as well as driver, opposed the appeal and argued that learned Tribunal has got the jurisdiction of a civil court, therefore, all those provisions, that are applicable to a civil court, would have to be applied to the proceedings of the Tribunal. A claim petition, which was earlier filed and dismissed not pressed, resulted in culmination of the proceedings thereof, and, on the same subject matter thereof, a fresh claim petition cannot be entertained. Learned counsel argued that res judicata even though incorporated in Section 117 of the CPC but on the principle of equity and therefore if the second claim petition on the same subject matter is allowed to be entertained, it would complicate the proceedings which have attained finality.