Gauhati High Court
Sri Binod Chandra Goswami vs Dr. Anandi Ram Baruah And Anr. on 27 January, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1993ACJ284, AIR 1993 GAUHATI 8, (1993) 1 ACJ 284 (1992) 2 GAU LR 33, (1992) 2 GAU LR 33
ORDER S.K. Homchaudhuri, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20-10-90 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jorhat in M.A.C.T. Case No. 21 /90. By the impugned order the learned tribunal held that the petitioner Binod Chandra Goswami, brother of the injured Promod Goswami not being duly authorised to make claim within the meaning of Section 166(l)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the petition filed by him was not maintainable and accordingly rejected the claim application.
2. Earlier on the basis of the materials placed before the learned Tribunal, an order was passed for payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 12,500/- to the injured Under Section 140 of the M. V. Act on the principle of no fault liability.
3. I have heard Mr. D, N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the opposite party. Mr. Choudhury submits that although the application claiming the compensation was initially filed by the petitioner, the brother of the injured, without obtaining prior authority due to bona fide mistaken advice, however, injured is before the Court, inasmuch as, he has appointed the petitioner as his constituted attorney for prosecution of the case. As such, for the initial technical flaw, the injured may not be deprived of the compensation.
4. Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand submits that admittedly the application claiming compensation was preferred by the petitioner without obtaining prior authority from the injured, the Sub-section (l)(d) of Section 166 of the M. V. Act provides that application was to be made by any agent after being duly authorised, and that the power of attorney executed long after the registration of the case cannot operate retrospectively to validate the unauthorised claim. As such, there is no infirmity in the impugned order which merits interference.
5. I have considered the submission made on behalf of the petitioner and the opposite party and have perused the impugned order and other materials on records. Technically the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. But the provisions of law are not to be observed as ritual. There lies the legislative intendment as well as juristic principles beneath the words of the provision of law. From a plain reading of Section 166 of the M. V. Act, it becomes apparent that legislative intendment regarding entertaining application claiming compensation by the tribunal is very liberal. Sub-section (4) of Section 166 empowers the Tribunal to treat the report filed by the police officer regarding an accident as if it were an application under the provisions of the M. V, Act. What care is to be taken by the Tribunal is to see that no person other than the person entitled to compensation manages to get away with the compensation by impersonation. In the case wherein the application is made by a person other than the person entitled to the compensation, without being authorised, only course for the learned Tribunal may not be to reject the application. The learned Tribunal may treat the application as if it was preferred by the person entitled to compensation if subsequent to the filing of such claim application, the real claimant appears before the Tribunal and endorses the action taken by the unauthorised person claiming compensation. Legislative intendment to provide immediate relief to the injured person as contemplated under Section 140 of the M. V. Act cannot be allowed to be sacrified at the altar of techniality.
6. In the instant case, no doubt, claim application was made by the petitioner without obtaining prior authority from the injured. But if the learned tribunal is satisfied that subsequently the injured has appeared before it by his subsequent act of appointing the petitioner as his constituted attorney, the Tribunal may treat the application as if it were, filed by the injured through a duly authorised person.
7. For the reasons stated above, impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Court of learned Tribunal. In the paramount interest of social justice, the learned Tribunal may either entertain the claim application preferred by the petitioner as if it were filed on behalf of the injured being duly authorised by him or entertain a claim application afresh condoning the delay in filing thereof since due to bona fide mistaken advice the claim application was filed without prior authority. The learned Tribunal shall also ensure that payment of compensation as ordered on 2-7-90 is made to the injured or to a person duly authorised by him.
Both parties shall appear before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jorhat on 28-2-92 to receive an order from the Tribunal.
With the aforesaid direction, the petition is allowed. No costs.