RATNA RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises a short question as to whether a counter claim can be allowed in a claim petition filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly in the circumstances of the present case.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that a collision took place on January 7, 1977 between a Jeep belonging to the Government of India and the truck belonging to the appellant on the main highway between Barmer and Balotra. THE persons, who were travelling in the jeep, were injured in the accident and they filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' ), which was allowed by the Tribunal and compensation was awarded to the injured persons by the Tribunal in respect of which a separate appeal has been preferred by the appellant which is pending in this Court.

(3.) THE argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that several other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have not been specifically made applicable to claim proceedings by Rule 20 or similar provisions contained in the Rules of other States, but they have been applied in the motor accident claim cases. Learned counsel referred to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Darshana Devi (1), wherein the provisions of Order 33 Rule 9a of the Code of Civil Procedure have been held to apply to the Tribunals, which have trapping of civil courts. But their Lordships of the Supreme Court have themselves observed, in the aforesaid decision, that access to justice by indigent persons is an integral part of the concept of social justice and the basis principles contained in Article 14 and 39a of the Constitution; and the law enacted for the benefit of the poor cannot be stultified by non-application thereof to the indigent persons, who must be given benefit doubt against levy of price to enter the temple of justice.