Baijanti (Smt.) and Others vs Laxmi Prasad Kanoujia and Another

A.K. Sharma, J.—This appeal has been filed u/s 163(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order dated 03.05.2013 passed in Claim Case No. 91/12 by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur (M.R) whereby the claim case filed by the appellants/claimants has been dismissed as barred by provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. The appellants/claimants have filed earlier claim before the Tribunal u/s 163(A) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Thereafter, considering the technicalities the claim petition was withdrawn and thereafter, claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed which has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal by impugned order on the ground that no liberty to file fresh claim petition has been obtained by the claimants and second claim is barred by provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 Sub Rule 3.

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that he has prayed before the Tribunal for permission to withdraw the claim with liberty to file fresh claim but the order rejecting the earlier claim does not mention about such liberty even then the learned Tribunal is not justified in rejecting the claim as the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. are not applicable to the Claim Cases.

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants have cited judgment by Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Courts passed in the matter of Bimla Devi and another Vs. Raj Bala and others dated 10.03.2009 in Civil Revision No. 4995/08 in which it has been held that the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. are applicable only two civil suits besides the earlier withdrawal being a conditional withdrawal. The Motor Vehicle Act is beneficial piece of legislation meant for the benefit of the appellants/claimants. It is well settled that the rules and procedure are meant to advance the cause of justice rather than scuttle the same on hyper technicalities.

In the present case the appellants/claimants have withdrawn the earlier claim petition by specifically mentioning that they want to withdraw the claim due to mistake of law which means that the claim may be filed again by curing the mistake. In such a case the court must be cautious enough to grant the liberty suo motu.

The provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. are applicable to suits only. Therefore, the learned Tribunal is not justified in rejecting the claim by considering the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1(3) of CPC. Therefore, appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is here by quashed and the Tribunal is directed to proceed further with the claim case as the claim filed by the appellants/claimants is maintainable u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.