Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs P. Sujatha And Ors. on 29 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: IV(2005)ACC495, 2006ACJ1799, 2005(4)ALD352, 2005(4)ALT264, AIR 2005 (NOC) 484 (AP), 2005 A I H C 3122, (2005) 3 TAC 160, (2006) 1 CIVLJ 116, (2005) 4 ACC 495, (2005) 4 ANDH LT 264, (2006) 3 ACJ 1799, (2005) 4 ANDHLD 352
ORDER A. Gopal Reddy, J.
1. National Insurance Company filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness of the order, dated 20.1.2005 passed in I.A. No. 45 of 2005 in O.P. No. 1091 of 2001 on the file of V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District whereby and whereunder the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge allowed the application filed by the third respondent in the O.P. under Order VI Rule 17 seeking permission to enhance the claim of the compensation amount from Rs. 2,50,000/-to Rs. 4,00,000/- by amending the petition.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of this revision, in nutshell, are as follows:
3. Respondents 2 and 3 are parents, 4th respondent is the sister and 5th respondent is the brother of deceased-Narender, who died in the accident that occurred on 10.8.2001, filed claim petition before the Tribunal below claiming compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the Insurance Company-petitioner and the owner of the vehicle-sixth respondent herein. Since the wife of the deceased-Narender, the first respondent herein, for some reason did not join the claimants-respondents 2 to 5 herein, they added her as third respondent in the claim petition. She filed the above application under Order 6 Rule 17 for enhancement of the claim amount from Rs. 2,50,000/- to 4,00,000/-and to amend the claim petition accordingly. The Insurance Company-petitioner herein contested the said application by filing a counter-affidavit inter alia, contending that since the second petitioner in the claim petition was already examined as P.W.1 and the case is posted to 20.1.2004 for further evidence of the claimants, at that stage filing of the present application is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal.
4. The Tribunal below after considering the contentions of both sides, by the impugned order allowed the application directing the wife of the deceased-Narender, the first respondent herein to carry out amendment and to file neat copy of amended petition and on condition of payment of requisite Court fee for the enhancement of claim amount sought by or before 28.1.2005. The legality and validity of the same is questioned in this revision petition.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company contended that under Rule 473 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, the entire Code of Civil Procedure is not made applicable for the enquiry under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Order V, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30; Order IX, Order XIII, Rules 3 to 10; Order XVI, Rules 2 to 21; Orders XVII and XXVIII, Rules 1 to 3 are alone made applicable. Placing reliance on Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 ACJ 934; Narendra Singh v. Dhappo, 1990 (II) ACJ 625; and Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh, , learned Counsel contended that in the absence of provisions of Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. is made applicable to the enquiry for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the application itself is not maintainable and the Tribunal below erred in allowing the application. He further contended that Rule 231 provides for the procedure regarding compensation on the principle of no fault liability. The Apex Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni's case (supra) observed that for the purpose of adjudicating and awarding the claim, the Claims Tribunal shall follow the procedure of summary trial as contained in Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
6. Reliance placed on Judgments 1 and 2 supra are misplaced on the facts of the case on hand. In none of the said decisions nowhere it is stated that the heirs of the deceased are precluded from seeking an amendment of claim petition for enhanced compensation.
7. Mr. P. Sridhar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that R1-wife was sent to her parent's house. If the claim petition for Rs. 2,50,000/-, is not suitably amended she will deprive of her right to receive the just compensation. He further submits that amendment for enhancement of compensation can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings even at the stage of appeal and placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh (supra).
8. It is convenient to consider the above submissions made in the context of amendment made to two sections of Motor Vehicles Act 54/94 i.e. 158(6) and 166(4) and rationale behind the said amendment, and it is appropriate to have an insight into the above sections, which read thus:
Section 158(6): As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police officer, the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and Insurer.
166(4): 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
9. The Law Commission in its 119th Report had recommended that every application for a claim be made to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, at the option of the claimant; further for increase of amount of compensation and removal of time for filing of application by road accident victims for compensation. To achieve the said social object and in view of constitutional mandate enshrined in Directive Principles of State Policy, namely Article 41 of the Constitution, necessary amendments were made in partial repeal of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by omitting Section 166(3).
10. By making amendment to Sections 158(6) and 166(4) the Legislature has in fact done away with formal application and has visualized the Claims Tribunal, treating the report made by the Officer-in-charge of Police Station, itself as a claim petition. Sub-section (6) of Section 158 has been enacted with beneficial intends, so that where a police officer reports about the death or injury, the Tribunal can act on it even if the legal representatives of deceased person or an injured, has not approached the Tribunal, the application, if any, filed is only a formal application in the form of an information to award the compensation to the victims or their heirs. To avoid incongruity and possible in consistency of amendment made to Section 15(6) and 166(4) with Section 166(3) of that Act, and to achieve the result in enacting Sections 158(6) and 166(4) Section 166(3) altogether deleted. The legislative intendment in enacting the above sections through Act 54/94 as seen from the Statement of Objects and Reasons is to remove the hardship faced by the victims of the motor accident and their dependants. The purpose of amendment brought in is to alleviate, not augment, the sufferings of the people. Since the Motor Vehicles Act is a social legislation the object of which is to compensate the dependants of the deceased or the person who suffers injuries in a road accident approach to in applying procedural law should take a back seat even if the same is in conflict with the substantive law, which do not restrict award of compensation to that of the claim as claimed and authorize the Claims Tribunal to award the compensation which is just and reasonable under the Act. It is well known that the award of compensation depends on variety of facts including monetary deprivation to which the heirs of the deceased are subjected.
11. In Nagappa's case (supra), the Apex Court observed as follows:
"Moreover, from Section 169 of the Act and Rules 253 and 254 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it is dear that Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is applicable to such proceedings. Therefore, in an appropriate case, depending upon the facts and the evidence on record and in the interest of justice, the Court may permit amendment of claim petition so as to award enhanced compensation. Form 63 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which is for filing an application for compensation, does not provide that the claimant should specify his claim amount. Further, for amendment of the pleadings, it is settled law that unless it causes injustice to the other side or it is not necessary for the purpose of determinating the real issue between the parties, the Court would grant amendment There is no time-limit prescribed for claiming compensation. Therefore, there is no question of enhanced claim being barred by limitation."
The Apex Court at Para 7 further held:
"Firstly, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act") there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is-it should be "just" compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act, Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury, or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. Under the proviso to Sub-section (1), all the legal representatives of the deceased who have not joined as the claimants are to be impleaded as respondents to the application for compensation. The other important part of the said section is Sub-section (4), which provides that "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". Hence, the Claims Tribunal in an appropriate case can treat the report forwarded to it as an application for compensation even though no such claim is made or no specified amount is claimed."
12. It is apt to quote here the observation of Justice Vivian Bose in his illuminating language dealing with the Code of Civil Procedure in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, , which reads thus:
"It is procedure, something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to both sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it"
13. It is settled principle of law that substantive law determines rights and liabilities of the parties, whereas adjective or procedural law prescribes the practice, procedure and machinery for the enforcement of those rights and liabilities. The function of adjective law is to facilitate justice and further its ends. Since Civil Procedure Code is a part of the adjective law and deals with procedure alone and must be interpreted in a manner so as to subserve and advance the cause of justice rather than to defeat it. As far as possible no proceedings in the Court of law should be allowed to defeat on mere technicalities. When there is no restriction in substantive law to claim higher compensation by amending the claim petition, the party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of the rules of procedure.
14. In Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi, , Justice Hegde speaking for the Bench observed as under.
"Rules of pleadings are intended as aids for a fair trial and for reaching a just decision. An action at law should not be equated to a game of chess. Provisions of law are not mere formulae to be observed as rituals. Beneath the words of a provision of law, generally speaking, there lies a juristic principle. It is the duty of the Court to ascertain that principle and implement it...."
15. In view of the same, it is not open for the Insurance Company to contend that in the absence of making applicable of Order VI Rule 17 CPC to the proceedings, the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction to amend the claim petition at the instance of one of the heirs who has arrayed as respondent to the petition, when the substantive law, namely, Motor Vehicles Act, do not restrict the claim to that of the claim as claimed and authorizes the Tribunal to award the compensation which is just and reasonable as provided under the Act.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the discretion exercised by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Ranga Reddy District is in furtherance to advance substantial justice and do not suffer from any incurable legal infirmities warranting interference of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
17. Civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.