Komati Seetha Mahalakshmi and Others vs Gorrepati Nagabhushanam@ Busi and Others

B. Chandra Kumar, J.—This M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 7-12-2012 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 140 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. Appellants herein are the claimants, respondent No. 1 is the driver, Respondent No. 2 is the owner and Respondent No. 3 is the Insurance Company of the vehicle, which was involved in an accident.

There is no need to give notice to the respondents in this appeal and this appeal can be disposed of at the admission stage itself.

Notice was not served on respondent No. 2. Paper publication was ordered as a substitute service. It appears that the petitioners failed to file the paper publication. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against respondent No. 2, who is the owner of the vehicle on 21-4-2009. Trial was commenced. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A.1 to A.6 were marked. Insurance Policy was marked as Ex. B.1. Admittedly, the policy was in force on the date of accident.

When the case was posted for arguments, the learned counsel for the claimants before the Tribunal seems to have realized their mistake on 4-12-2012. On the same day itself, an application was filed seeking to restore the claim petition against respondent No. 2 and the said petition was returned on very same day with an endorsement to the effect that notice to other side was not given and how the petition was maintainable at the time of arguments. Then, the objections were complied with after giving notice to the other side.

On 6-12-2012, the said application was again resubmitted. Then, on the very same day, the Tribunal again returned the same with an endorsement to the effect that how this petition is maintainable without Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Tribunal pronounced the award on 7-12-2012 i.e. on the very next day of returning the application filed vide G.R. No. 3624(B) dated 4-12-2012. The tribunal having held that since the claim petition has been dismissed against respondent No. 2- owner, the Insurance Company is also not liable to pay compensation, dismissed the claim petition against Respondent No. 3- Insurance Company.

It is a fact that the claim petition was dismissed against respondent No. 2- owner of the vehicle and though paper publication was ordered, the claimants have failed to take steps.

It appears that it might be a clerical mistake on the part of the counsel appearing for the claimants before the Tribunal. Admittedly, they have filed an application seeking to restore the O.P. against respondent No. 2. Initially, that application was returned with objection No. 1 that notice to other side was not given and how this petition was maintainable at the time of arguments. The said objection was complied with by giving notice to other side and it was resubmitted. Then, the tribunal has taken another objection that how the petition is maintainable without Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Whatever objections that have to be taken by the Tribunal should be taken at the first instance itself. The tribunal is not expected to take fresh objections again after the petition is resubmitted. Anyhow, the claimants had no opportunity to file an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

One important factor that was not considered by the tribunal is that there is no limitation for filing the claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act after the amendments of the Act.

If such is the case, when there is no limitation, the claimants may approach the tribunal at any time. Moreover, sub-section 4 of 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 also gives an opportunity to the tribunal to treat a report filed by the police as a claim petition and to proceed with the same.

It is pertinent to extract sub-section 4 of Section 166 of the said Act which reads as under:

The claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.

If that is the clear mandate of the legislature, the Tribunal apparently committed a mistake in returning the application with an objection to the effect that the petition should have been accompanied with an application seeking to condone the delay. The main point that is to be answered in this case is that whether the dismissal order passed by the tribunal on 21-4-2009 against R-2 is to be set aside and also the claim petition is to be restored to its file against R-2 or not?.

It has to be seen that the husband of the first claimant died and the other claimants are brought on record as his legal heirs. The accident occurred on 1-6-2007 and the matter was kept pending for about five years before the Tribunal. The tribunal ought to have considered the sufferance of the claimants and ought not to have taken the technical grounds in rejecting the claim of the claimants claiming compensation from the owner and insurer of the vehicle. Hence, on mere technicalities, the claim of the claimants shall not be dismissed.

In these circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the award passed by the tribunal is set aside remanding the matter to the Tribunal. Moreover, the claimants are directed to resubmit the application G.R. No. 3624(B) dated 4-12-2012 which was returned on 6-12-2012 and the tribunal is also directed to entertain the same in accordance with the law and dispose of the same as early as possible, preferably, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also made clear that once notice has been taken to the owner of the vehicle as given by him in the police records or in the R.C. book and even if notice is returned unserved on the owner of the vehicle, the tribunal shall deem that notice has been served on the owner of the vehicle. Having given the address in the R.C. book or in the police records or to the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the owners may try to avoid the notice. Therefore, the tribunal should keep these aspects in its mind while dealing with the applications of this nature.