Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. During the pendency of the claim petition it is revealed that the Jeep involved in accident was not insured with any of the Insurance Company.

5. The Claims Tribunal issued notices to the respondents in pursuant to which a joint written statement was filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 3. Respondent No. 2 also filed a separate written statement.

6. In the joint written statement filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 3, an evasive reply of Paragraph No. 11 to the claim petition relating to pleadings of rash and negligent driving was given without pleading of mechanical defect. For ready reference paragraph No. 11 of the written statement filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 3 is reproduced hereinbelow :

15. It is urged by learned Counsel for claimant-appellants that from perusal of Paragraphs 11 and 13 of the claim petition and its evasive reply filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 3 jointly and respondent No. 2 separately it is clear that neither in their two sets of written statements plea of mechanical defect was taken nor rash and negligent driving of the Jeep has been specifically denied, therefore, the rash and negligent driving of Jeep shall be deemed to be admitted by them within the meaning of Order VIII, Rule 5, C.P.C.

21. In my considered opinion, no one has invested right in any procedural matter unless any of the party acquired any substantial right before the change of procedure. Indisputably, in the present case before insertion of Order VIII, Rule 5, C.P.C. in the new Rules of 1990 no substantial right has accrued in favour of respondents, therefore, it is reiterated with emphasis that change of procedure by new Rules of 1990 relating to evasive reply is to be given retrospective effect in inquiry proceedings initiated before the change before Claims Tribunals and an argument contrary to it is hereby repelled. Mere absence of the provisions of evasive reply envisaged under Order VIII, Rule 5, C.P.C. in old Rules of 1964 will not confer vested right on the respondents to give an evasive reply to Paragraphs 11 and 13 of the claim petition wherein rash and negligent driving of the Jeep in question was pleaded by claimant-appellants. Mere absence of Order 8, Rule 5, C.P.C. in the old Rules of 1964 will also not detract this Court from its normal interpretation that it being procedural in character shall have to be applied to pending cases.

22. Once the provisions of Chapter 10.28 of Rules of 1990 arc given retrospective effect, the evasive reply given in the present case by respondents shall be treated to be their admission regarding rash and negligent driving of the Jeep in question which met with an accident resulting in tragic death of Dwarka Prasad Sharma whose legal representatives have initiated the present proceedings for compensation.

23. It is well settled that in a decision of a case where legal representatives of deceased' are claiming compensation arising out of motor accident, a question outside the pleadings of the owner, driver or the Insurance Co., as the case may be, cannot be raised. It is held that the written statement in a claim petition must deal specifically with each allegations and when a driver or owner denies any such fact he must not do so evasively and if it is so done then the evasive denial of facts shall be treated to be his admission as has been done in the present case with regard to rash and negligent driving. When such fact of denial is found to be evasive then no other evidence or proof is necessary. As regards Insurance Company is concerned, under the old Motor Vehicles Act as well as under the new Motor Vehicles Act its defences have been specified. It cannot be allowed to take any other defence which-is not pleaded by it.