Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Kaur And Ors. vs Hardeep Singh And Anr. on 7 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: III(2005)ACC535, (2005)140PLR503
Author: Ashutosh Mohunta
Bench: Ashutosh Mohunta
JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. The claimants have filed the present revision against the order dated 23.11.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Karnal, by which the application of the petitioners for abandoning part of the claim and for mentioning the correct income of the deceased in the claim petition was dismissed.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that one Dilbag Singh died in a road accident on 2.8.2002. The petitioners who are his widow, children and father filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the owner and insurer of the Motor Cycle No. HR-05-4290 before the MACT, Karnal, wherein it was averred that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month and the total compensation claimed was Rs. 10 lacs. After the conclusion of the evidence, the petitioners field an application before the Tribunal with a prayer that they be allowed to scale down their claim to Rs. 7 lacs instead of Rs. 10 lacs and be also allowed to mention the correct income of the deceased as Rs. 3300/- per month instead of Rs. 4,000/- per month. This application has been dismissed by the MACT, Karnal, vide order dated 23.11.2004 as according to the Tribunal at this belated stage the application if allowed would result in causing prejudice to the respondents and further that the application is mere in the nature of an amendment.
3. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that as per Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C., the plaintiff is allowed to abandon part of his claim at any time. Order 23 Rule 1 C.P.C. is reproduced as under:-
"1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of a part of claim.- (1) At any time after the institution of a suit the plaintiff may, as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or abandon a part of his claim.
Provided that where the plaintiff is minor or other person to whom the provisions contained in Rules 1 to 14 or Order XXXII extend, neither the suit nor any part of the claim shall be abandoned without the leave of the Court."
4. It has further been contended that the object of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act is to award compensation expeditiously and under second schedule attached with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, claim can be made without proving the negligence of the offending vehicle.
5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent has argued that if at this stage the petitioners are allowed to scale down the income of the deceased as well as the total compensation then prejudice would be caused to the respondents. The right which has already accrued to the respondents cannot be taken away by the petitioners merely by abandoning their claim which is nothing but an amendment of the pleadings.
6. I have considered the contentions of both the sides and I am of the considered view that the petitioners who are claimants before the MACT have already filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and, thus, are entitled to say that the deceased was earning less than Rs. 40,000/- per annum. Under the second Schedule attached with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act the petitioners need not prove the negligence of the offending vehicle and that Section 163-A is a social security provision which gives a right to the claimants to claim income of the deceased upto Rs. 40,000/- and for this purpose they need not prove the negligence on part of the offending vehicle. Thus, this provision being an essential legislation in favour of claimant has to be interpreted in a liberal manner.
7. In the instant case, the petitioners have scaled down the compensation from Rs. 10 lacs to Rs. 7 lacs and are claiming that the deceased was earning Rs. 3300/- per month instead of Rs. 4,000/- per month and, thus, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the respondents in the present case as lesser compensation is being now claimed. Moreover, the application for restricting the claim to Rs. 7 lacs instead of Rs. 10 lacs cannot be said to be an application essentially in the nature of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C.
In view of the above, the order dated 23.11.2004 passed by the MACT, Karnal, is set aside and the petitioners are allowed to abandon their claim beyond Rs. 7 lacs and are also allowed to mention the correct income of the deceased as Rs. 3300/- per month instead of Rs. 4,000/- per month.
Revision allowed.
Copy of the order be given Dasti on payment of usual charges.