FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE 2. Mohan Lal (since deceased) along with Smt. Shakuntla Devi was going on a scooter bearing registration No.PB Naraingarh. When they reached near Aamwala Pir Kala Amb road, one truck bearing No.HR accident with their scooter. As a result FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE Brief facts of the case are that on Mohan Lal (since deceased) along with Smt. Shakuntla Devi was going on a scooter bearing registration No.PB Naraingarh. When they reached near Aamwala Pir Kala Amb road, one truck bearing No.HR-37-7751 came from Naraingarh accident with their scooter. As a result Brief facts of the case are that on 13.05.2002 at about 8.00 p.m. Mohan Lal (since deceased) along with Smt. Shakuntla Devi was going on a scooter bearing registration No.PB-02R-4223 from Kala Amb to Naraingarh. When they reached near Aamwala Pir Kala Amb road, one 7751 came from Naraingarh side and caused the accident with their scooter. As a result, Mohan Lal received multiple p.m. Mohan Lal (since deceased) along with Smt. Shakuntla Devi was going Kala Amb to Naraingarh. When they reached near Aamwala Pir Kala Amb road, one side and caused the Mohan Lal received multiple RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment simple and grievous injuries besides head injur Smt. Shakuntla Devi, who was pillion rider on the same scooter also received multiple injuri disclosed her name as Kamlesh and name of the deceased as Ram Kumar to the police. However, later on when made a statement on 16.05.2002 that her name is Shakuntla Devi and tha of deceased is Mohan Lal. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the truck No. HR No.2 and 3 are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, respectively. It has been working as mason annum. It has been medical reasons. The deceased had adopted Gulzar Singh claimant No.2, who happened to be so submitted MACT, Ambala City, but due to several errors fact that was withdrawn. 3. not appear despite service and they were proceeded against order dated 29.07.2004. 4. submitted tha petition filed at Amabla was withdrawn without permission of the court. (O&M) simple and grievous injuries besides head injur Smt. Shakuntla Devi, who was pillion rider on the same scooter also received multiple injuries and under semi disclosed her name as Kamlesh and name of the deceased as Ram Kumar to the police. However, later on when, she regained consciousness made a statement on 16.05.2002 that her name is Shakuntla Devi and tha of deceased is Mohan Lal. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the truck No. HR No.2 and 3 are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, respectively. It has been averred that the deceased was 3 working as mason-cum-labour contractor and was earning annum. It has been averred that the deceased could not marry due to medical reasons. The deceased had adopted Gulzar Singh claimant No.2, who happened to be son of elder brother of the deceased. submitted that earlier the claimant No.1 had filed a claim petition in the MACT, Ambala City, but due to several errors the claimant No.2-Gulzar Singh was minor was withdrawn. Upon notice of the claim petitio not appear despite service and they were proceeded against order dated 29.07.2004. Respondent No.3 has contested the claim petition and has submitted that the claim petition is not maintainable because earlier claim petition filed at Amabla was withdrawn without permission of the court. -2- simple and grievous injuries besides head injury and died on the spot. Smt. Shakuntla Devi, who was pillion rider on the same scooter also es and under semi-conscious condition wrongly disclosed her name as Kamlesh and name of the deceased as Ram Kumar she regained consciousness, she made a statement on 16.05.2002 that her name is Shakuntla Devi and that of deceased is Mohan Lal. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the truck No. HR-37-7751. Respondents No.2 and 3 are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, respectively. that the deceased was 34 years of age and he was labour contractor and was earning 40,000/- per that the deceased could not marry due to medical reasons. The deceased had adopted Gulzar Singh claimant No.2, n of elder brother of the deceased. It is also that earlier the claimant No.1 had filed a claim petition in the MACT, Ambala City, but due to several errors in the said petition and the Gulzar Singh was minor, the said petition Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents No.1 and 2 did not appear despite service and they were proceeded against ex parte vide Respondent No.3 has contested the claim petition and has t the claim petition is not maintainable because earlier claim petition filed at Amabla was withdrawn without permission of the court. and died on the spot. Smt. Shakuntla Devi, who was pillion rider on the same scooter also conscious condition wrongly disclosed her name as Kamlesh and name of the deceased as Ram Kumar she t of deceased is Mohan Lal. The accident was caused due to rash and 7751. Respondents No.2 and 3 are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, respectively. 4 years of age and he was per that the deceased could not marry due to medical reasons. The deceased had adopted Gulzar Singh claimant No.2, It is also that earlier the claimant No.1 had filed a claim petition in the the id petition n, respondents No.1 and 2 did vide Respondent No.3 has contested the claim petition and has t the claim petition is not maintainable because earlier claim RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment 5. following issues: 6. on record, the learne SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 7. the claim petition was solely dismissed on the ground that petition Exhibit P without liberty to file fresh petition on the same cause of action. Therefore (O&M) From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the accident was caused due to truck registration No.HR 37 respondent No.1 causing death of Mohan Lal as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive any compensation amount on account of death of deceased Mohan Lal in the accident. If so, how much and from who? OPP 3. Whether the insured has violated any terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged. If so to what effect ? OPR3 4. Relief. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES The learned counsel for the claimants the claim petition was solely dismissed on the ground that petition Exhibit P-4, filed before the MACT, Ambala, was withdrawn without liberty to file fresh petition on the same cause of action. Therefore, he prayed that the present appeal be allowed -3- From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the was caused due to involvement of .HR 37-7751 being driven by Satpal .1 causing death of Mohan Lal as alleged? Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive any compensation amount on account of death of deceased ent. If so, how much and from sured has violated any terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged. If so to what effect ? After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence dismissed the claim petition. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES The learned counsel for the claimants-appellants contends that the claim petition was solely dismissed on the ground that previous claim 4, filed before the MACT, Ambala, was withdrawn without liberty to file fresh petition on the same cause of action. he prayed that the present appeal be allowed. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the involvement of 7751 being driven by Satpal .1 causing death of Mohan Lal as alleged? Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive any compensation amount on account of death of deceased ent. If so, how much and from sured has violated any terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged. If so to what effect ? After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence appellants contends that claim 4, filed before the MACT, Ambala, was withdrawn without liberty to file fresh petition on the same cause of action. RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment 9. whole record of this case. 10. (O&M) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case. The relevant portion of the award is reproduced as under: “10. It is worth-noting that Smt Gulzar Singh, adopted son of claim petition before Motor Accident Claims on 17-3-2003. Unfortunately Smt. Sardari 2003 itself and therefore, her legal heirs were impl affidavit of Piare Lal brother of the deceased shows that the deceased was 34 years old contractor and was earning Rs. 40,000/ alleged that the deceased incapable of producing a child, therefore, he did not marry and he adopted his son Gulzar Singh in Baisakhi 2000 in accordance with Hindu ceremonies. The petitioners also produced one school certificate mark C allegedly is High School, Gheer in accordance with which Gulzar Singh son of Mohan Lal was a student of 5th standard in that school. 11. The most material question that arises for determination is whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation or not. After scanning the evidence on record I am of the opinion that the claim petition of petitioner No.1 Smt.Sardari Devi is not maintainable and petitioner No.2 is not proved to be the adopted son of them are not entitled to any compensation at all. 12. It is noteworthy that earlier Smt. claim petition for compensation on account of death of Mohan Lal in the same very vehicular accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala City. 3-2003 Ex. P4 shows that claim p withdrawn in the court of Shri Sanje -4- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the of the award is reproduced as under: noting that Smt. Sardari Devi mother and ulzar Singh, adopted son of deceased Mohan Lal filed this petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal 2003. Unfortunately Smt. Sardari Davi died on 26-3- 2003 itself and therefore, her legal heirs were impleaded. The affidavit of Piare Lal brother of the deceased shows that the deceased was 34 years old and was working as labour contractor and was earning Rs. 40,000/- per annum. He also incapable of producing a child, marry and he adopted his son Gulzar in accordance with Hindu rites and petitioners also produced one school issued by Head Master, Geeta High School, Gheer in accordance with which Gulzar Singh student of 5th standard in that school. The most material question that arises for determination is whether the petitioners are entitled to any After scanning the evidence on record I am of the opinion that the claim petition of petitioner No.1 Smt.Sardari Devi is not maintainable and petitioner No.2 is not proved to be the adopted son of Mohan Lal, therefore, both of compensation at all. It is noteworthy that earlier Smt. Sardari Devi filed a nsation on account of death of Mohan same very vehicular accident before Motor Accident The copy of the order dated 29- claim petition was dismissed as withdrawn in the court of Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Motor Accident I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the mother and filed this Tribunal, Karnal - aded. The affidavit of Piare Lal brother of the deceased shows that the nd was working as labour per annum. He also incapable of producing a child, marry and he adopted his son Gulzar rites and petitioners also produced one school ued by Head Master, Geeta High School, Gheer in accordance with which Gulzar Singh The most material question that arises for any After scanning the evidence on record I am of the opinion that the claim petition of petitioner No.1 Smt.Sardari Devi is not maintainable and petitioner No.2 is not Mohan Lal, therefore, both of d a nsation on account of death of Mohan before Motor Accident - tition was dismissed as v Kumar, Motor Accident RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment (O&M) Claims Tribunal, Ambala City to file a fresh claim petition on the sam 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners has in fact Smt. Sardari Devi had filed an application for withdrawal of the claim petition with permission to file a fresh petition but the Tribunal at Ambala City claim petition as withdrawn. petitioner has cited Kantibhal D. Patel Municipal Corporation 1998(3) Civil Court Cases (Gujrat) 97, L. Shivakumaraswamy Vs. H. Lingappa & others 1982 Civil Court Cases Karnataka 583 and Hans Raj Akrot Vs. The State of H.P. through Collector 1989 Civil Court Cases H.P. 45 and has vehemently argued that it was not open to the court grant withdrawal of the petition and refuse permission to file fresh petition. He has contend reject the entire prayer or allow the entire counsel for the petitioners has also etc. Vs. Udham Singh etc. 1989 and has argued that strict rules of do not apply to proceedings before Tribunal, therefore, even if the present claim petition was filed without the permission to file a fresh claim petition on the same nevertheless the same is maintainable. 14. I have given my thoughtful consideration to arguments of the learned counsel for the Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under: WITHDRAWAL OF SUIT OR ABANDONMENT OF A PART OF CLAIM (1) At any tim 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 a minor person to whom the provisions contained in -5- City without permission of the court petition on the same cause of action. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that vi had filed an application for withdrawal of the claim petition with permission to file a fresh petition but the Tribunal at Ambala City simply dismissed the withdrawn. The learned counsel for the cited Kantibhal D. Patel Vs. Ahmedabad Corporation 1998(3) Civil Court Cases (Gujrat) 97, H. Lingappa & others 1982 Civil nd Hans Raj Akrot Vs. The State of H.P. through Collector 1989 Civil Court Cases H.P. 45 and has vehemently argued that it was not open to the court to grant withdrawal of the petition and refuse permission to file h petition. He has contended that the court could either reject the entire prayer or allow the entire prayer. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also cited Mrs. Vijay Chopra 1989-2 PLR Punjab & Haryana 36 rules of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to proceedings before Tribunal, therefore, even if tition was filed without the permission to claim petition on the same cause of action maintainable. y thoughtful consideration to the above arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Order 23 Procedure reads as under: 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 a minor or other person to whom the provisions contained in without permission of the court urged that vi had filed an application for withdrawal of the claim petition with permission to file a fresh the The learned counsel for the Ahmedabad Corporation 1998(3) Civil Court Cases (Gujrat) 97, H. Lingappa & others 1982 Civil nd Hans Raj Akrot Vs. The State of H.P. through Collector 1989 Civil Court Cases H.P. 45 and to grant withdrawal of the petition and refuse permission to file could either The learned Vijay Chopra 2 PLR Punjab & Haryana 36 Civil Procedure do not apply to proceedings before Tribunal, therefore, even if tition was filed without the permission to cause of action above r 23 WITHDRAWAL OF SUIT OR ABANDONMENT OF A r the institution of a suit the plaintiff may, as against all or any of the defendants abandon his suit or other person to whom the provisions contained in RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment (O&M) rules 1 to 14 of Orde the suit not any part of the claim abandoned without the leave of the (2) An application for leave under the proviso to sub-rule (1) shall the next friend and also, if the minor or such other person is represented by a pleader, by a certificate of a pleader to abandonment proposed is in his opinion, for the benefit of the minor (3) Where the Court is satisfied,: (a) that a suit must fail by reason of some formal defect, or (b) that there are sufficient grounds for the plaintiff to institute a fresh subject matter of a suit or part of a claim. It may on such terms as it thinks fit, grant plaintiff permission to withdraw from or such part of the claim with a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of such suit or such part of the claim. (4) Where the plaintiff: (a) abandons any suit or part of claim rule (1), or (b) withdraws from without the permission referred to in (3), he shall be liable for such costs as the may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such subject-matter of such part of the claim. A perusal of the Haryana, Motor V that as per Rule 220 provisions of Order 23 Rules 1 to 3, of -6- rules 1 to 14 of Order XXXII. extend, neither the suit not any part of the claim shall be abandoned without the leave of the court. An application for leave under the proviso to rule (1) shall accompanied by affidavit of the next friend and also, if the minor or such other person is represented by a pleader, by a certificate of a pleader to the effect that the abandonment proposed is in his opinion, for the benefit of the minor or such other person. Where the Court is satisfied,:- that a suit must fail by reason of some formal are sufficient grounds for allowing the plaintiff to institute a fresh suit for the subject matter of a suit or part of a claim. It may on such terms as it thinks fit, grant the laintiff permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the claim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of such suit or such part of the claim. Where the plaintiff:- suit or part of claim under sub- withdraws from a suit or part of a claim the permission referred to in sub-rule shall be liable for such costs as the Court may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such matter of such part of the claim. A perusal of the Haryana, Motor Vehicle Rules 1993 shows that as per Rule 220 provisions of Order 23 Rules 1 to 3, of the neither shall be An application for leave under the proviso to affidavit of the next friend and also, if the minor or such other person is represented by a pleader, by a the effect that the abandonment proposed is in his opinion, for the that a suit must fail by reason of some formal allowing suit for the the such suit liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject matter of - suit or part of a claim rule Court may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit in respect of such hicle Rules 1993 shows the RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment (O&M) Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the before the Claims Tribunal. There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in Mrs. Vijay Udham Singh etc. (supra) that strict Procedure do not apply to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. However, in the instant case it is sp mentioned in the Haryana Motor Vehicle Rul provisions of Order 23 Rules 1 to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. So it was incumbent upon Smt. Sardari Devi claimant No earlier claim petition with liberty to file a fresh claim petition from the Claims Tribunal, Ambala. It is true that as per law laid down in the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners the court can either reje the entire prayer and it is not open to the withdrawal of suit and refuse permission to file fresh suit. However in the instant case there is absolutely no mat the file which could warrant that the p Sardari Devi made & prayer se claim petition with liberty to file a same cause of action. The claimants have mentioned in their claim petition that there were petition filed before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala City and claimant No.2 was minor and claimant No.l was not keeping good health, therefore, they wore not in a position to conduct that petition at Ambala. The claimants have alleged in the present claim petition that they had in an application seeking withdrawal of the claim petition with liberty to institute a fresh claim p even copy of order Ex.P4 shows that the claimants made a simple stat proceed with the petition and th withdrawn. Accordingly the claim p -7- Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in Mrs. Vijay Chopra etc.. Vs. Udham Singh etc. (supra) that strict rules of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to the proceedings before the Claims ver, in the instant case it is specifically mentioned in the Haryana Motor Vehicle Rules, 1993 that the s 1 to 3 are applicable to the Claims Tribunal. So it was incumbent claimant No.l to seek withdrawal of the with liberty to file a fresh claim petition the Claims Tribunal, Ambala. It is true that as per law laid down in the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners the court can either reject the entire prayer or allow r and it is not open to the court to grant withdrawal of suit and refuse permission to file fresh suit. the instant case there is absolutely no material on the file which could warrant that the petitioner No.1 Smt. eeking withdrawal of her earlier file a fresh claim petition on the laimants have mentioned in their there were several errors in the claim Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala as minor and claimant No.l was not od health, therefore, they wore not in a position to tition at Ambala. The claimants have nowhere alleged in the present claim petition that they had in fact moved king withdrawal of the claim petition with sh claim petition at Karnal. Further, rder Ex.P4 shows that the learned, counsel for simple statement that he did not want to and the same be dismissed as claim petition filed by Smt. Sardari proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. There is no dispute with the Vs. of Civil Procedure do not apply to the proceedings before the Claims cifically s, 1993 that the applicable to the Claims Tribunal. So it was incumbent withdrawal of the with liberty to file a fresh claim petition the Claims Tribunal, Ambala. It is true that as per law laid down in the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the ct the entire prayer or allow court to grant withdrawal of suit and refuse permission to file fresh suit. rial on ioner No.1 Smt. r earlier fresh claim petition on the laimants have mentioned in their errors in the claim Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala as minor and claimant No.l was not od health, therefore, they wore not in a position to nowhere fact moved king withdrawal of the claim petition with Further, for want to as tition filed by Smt. Sardari RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment (O&M) Devi was dismissed as withdrawn by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala City. Once the claim petition of Smt. Sardari Devi petitioner No.l was dismissed as withdrawn, h claim petition against the same v maintainable. She was precluded from instituting any fresh claim petition in respect of same subject also Smt.Sardari Devi being mother of the to claim compensation on account of d since she died within six days of filing of the claim petition, therefore, her legal heirs are not entitled to any compensation. 15. So far as the right of claimant No.2 Gulzar claim compensation being adopted son of Mohan Lal is concerned, it is pertinent to note that no documentary evidence has been produced to this effect th was adopted by Mohan Lal deceased in Baisakhi petitioners did not examine any other witnes (PWl) the real father of Gulzar Singh. in his cross-examination that an entry regarding adoption w made in their family Bahi as well as school record. He also deposed that his mother was having a sepa from him which included names of Mohan Lal and Gulzar Singh. He stated that he could not as it was lost. Even if the said ration card was lost the petitioners could produce record from department to prove that Gulzar singh was residing with Mohan Lal as his adopted son. family Bahi in which entry regarding adoption of by Mohan Lal was made was also not produced. So, the omission on the part of the petitioners relating to ration card and family Bahi raises an adverse inference against them. No doubt the petitioners produced one certificate mark C allegedly issued by the Head Master, Geeta High School, Gheer, in accordance with which -8- Devi was dismissed as withdrawn by Motor Accident Claims the claim petition of Smt. Sardari Devi petitioner No.l was dismissed as withdrawn, her similar the same very respondents was not at all She was precluded from instituting any fresh ame subject matter. Otherwise also Smt.Sardari Devi being mother of the deceased had a right to claim compensation on account of death of Mohan Lal and since she died within six days of filing of the claim petition, are not entitled to any compensation. So far as the right of claimant No.2 Gulzar Singh to claim compensation being adopted son of Mohan Lal deceased is concerned, it is pertinent to note that no documentary evidence has been produced to this effect that Gulzar Singh was adopted by Mohan Lal deceased in Baisakhi 2000. The petitioners did not examine any other witness except Piare Lal (PWl) the real father of Gulzar Singh. PW1 Piara Lal deposed xamination that an entry regarding adoption was in their family Bahi as well as school record. He also deposed that his mother was having a separate ration card from him which included names of Mohan Lal and Gulzar He stated that he could not produce the said ration card Even if the said ration card was lost the petitioners could produce record from Food & Supplies to prove that Gulzar singh was residing with Mohan Lal as his adopted son. Further-more the alleged family Bahi in which entry regarding adoption of Gulzar Singh by Mohan Lal was made was also not produced. So, the petitioners to produce the record relating to ration card and family Bahi raises an adverse No doubt the petitioners produced one sued by the Head Master, Geeta heer, in accordance with which Gulzar Singh Devi was dismissed as withdrawn by Motor Accident Claims the claim petition of Smt. Sardari r similar ry respondents was not at all She was precluded from instituting any fresh Otherwise had a right ath of Mohan Lal and since she died within six days of filing of the claim petition, Singh to deceased is concerned, it is pertinent to note that no documentary ingh The Lal Lal deposed as in their family Bahi as well as school record. He also ate ration card from him which included names of Mohan Lal and Gulzar produce the said ration card Even if the said ration card was lost the & Supplies to prove that Gulzar singh was residing with more the alleged Gulzar Singh by Mohan Lal was made was also not produced. So, the to produce the record relating to ration card and family Bahi raises an adverse No doubt the petitioners produced one sued by the Head Master, Geeta Gulzar Singh RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment 11. Tribunal (MACT Karnal) dismissed the claim petition solely on the ground that the claimant had previously filed a claim petition before the MACT, Ambala, which was withdrawn without to file a fresh claim petition. This conclusion rests on the order dated 29.03.2003 follows: (O&M) s/o Mohan Lal was studying in 5th standard in that school but that certificate was not duly proved by summoning the record of the school. The application form of admission of Gulzar Singh was not produced to show that Mohan Lal had got Gulzar Singh, admitted in the school as his adopted son. the certificate mark C was not duly proved therefore, reliance can be placed on it. Burden was to prove by cogent, concrete and Singh was adopted by Mohan Lal deceased serving statement of PW1 Piare Lal itself is not sufficient to prove the adoption of his son Gulzar Singh by Moh deceased. In other words there is no positive evidence to prove that Gulzar Singh claimant No.2 being adopted son of Mohan Lal is entitled to any compensation on the above vehicular accident. This issue is decided against t petitioners.” A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal (MACT Karnal) dismissed the claim petition solely on the ground that the claimant had previously filed a claim petition before the MACT, Ambala, which was withdrawn without to file a fresh claim petition. This conclusion rests on the order dated 29.03.2003 (Exhibit P-4), passed by the MACT, Ambala, “File taken up today on the application moved on behalf of the claimant. The learned counsel for the claimant has made a statement that he does not want to proceed with the petition and the same be dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, the claim petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The learned counsel for the respondents be inform compliance.” -9- was studying in 5th standard in that school but that certificate was not duly proved by summoning the record application form of admission of Gulzar Singh was not produced to show that Mohan Lal had got Gulzar Singh, admitted in the school as his adopted son. Since was not duly proved therefore, no reliance can be placed on it. Burden was upon the petitioners to prove by cogent, concrete and definite evidence that Gulzar Lal deceased. However, the self Piare Lal itself is not sufficient to his son Gulzar Singh by Mohan Lal In other words there is no positive evidence to prove claimant No.2 being adopted son of Mohan Lal is entitled to any compensation on account of his death in vehicular accident. This issue is decided against the A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal (MACT Karnal) dismissed the claim petition solely on the ground that the claimant had previously filed a claim petition before the MACT, Ambala, which was withdrawn without obtaining explicit liberty to file a fresh claim petition. This conclusion rests on the order dated passed by the MACT, Ambala, which reads as “File taken up today on the application moved on behalf of the learned counsel for the claimant has made a statement that he does not want to proceed with the petition and the same be dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, the claim petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The learned counsel for the respondents be informed. File be consigned after was studying in 5th standard in that school but that certificate was not duly proved by summoning the record application form of admission of Gulzar Singh was not produced to show that Mohan Lal had got e no petitioners evidence that Gulzar However, the self Piare Lal itself is not sufficient to an Lal In other words there is no positive evidence to prove claimant No.2 being adopted son of Mohan account of his death in he A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the learned Tribunal (MACT Karnal) dismissed the claim petition solely on the ground that the claimant had previously filed a claim petition before the obtaining explicit liberty to file a fresh claim petition. This conclusion rests on the order dated which reads as “File taken up today on the application moved on behalf of the learned counsel for the claimant has made a statement that he does not want to proceed with the petition and the same be dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, the claim petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The learned counsel ed. File be consigned after RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment 12. evident that the claimant had specifically moved an application before the MACT, Ambala, seeking withdrawal of the claim petition due to substantial stated that these errors could severely prejudice her interests. She also sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh, citing her inability to travel to Ambala and effe due to her advanced age and health condition. 13. discretion in considering the claimant’s application and erroneously dismissed the claim petition as withdrawn without for liberty to file a fresh petition. 14. categorical finding that the death of the deceased was caused by the use of the offending vehicle (HR 15. dismissing the fresh claim petition filed by the claimant on the procedural ground that the earlier petition had been withdrawn without permission to file afresh. 16. technical interpretation of procedural rules, which undermines the remedial purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Act is a beneficial legislation designed to ensure that victims of motor vehicle accidents and their dependents receive j Adopting a rigid procedural stance defeats the very objective of the Act. (O&M) However, upon a closer examination of the records, it becomes evident that the claimant had specifically moved an application before the MACT, Ambala, seeking withdrawal of the claim petition due to substantial drafting errors. In the application, the claimant explicitly stated that these errors could severely prejudice her interests. She also sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh, citing her inability to travel to Ambala and effe due to her advanced age and health condition. It is evident that the MACT, Ambala, failed to exercise judicial discretion in considering the claimant’s application and erroneously dismissed the claim petition as withdrawn without for liberty to file a fresh petition. In the present proceedings, the MACT, Karnal, recorded a categorical finding that the death of the deceased was caused by the use of the offending vehicle (HR-37-7751), driven by Satpal Singh. The MACT, Karnal, further exacerbated the issue by dismissing the fresh claim petition filed by the claimant on the procedural ground that the earlier petition had been withdrawn without permission to file afresh. Such an approach by the MACT, Karnal, ref technical interpretation of procedural rules, which undermines the remedial purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Act is a beneficial legislation designed to ensure that victims of motor vehicle accidents and their dependents receive j Adopting a rigid procedural stance defeats the very objective of the Act. -10- However, upon a closer examination of the records, it becomes evident that the claimant had specifically moved an application before the MACT, Ambala, seeking withdrawal of the claim petition due to drafting errors. In the application, the claimant explicitly stated that these errors could severely prejudice her interests. She also sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh, citing her inability to travel to Ambala and effectively contest the case due to her advanced age and health condition. It is evident that the MACT, Ambala, failed to exercise judicial discretion in considering the claimant’s application and erroneously dismissed the claim petition as withdrawn without addressing the request In the present proceedings, the MACT, Karnal, recorded a categorical finding that the death of the deceased was caused by the use 7751), driven by Satpal Singh. he MACT, Karnal, further exacerbated the issue by dismissing the fresh claim petition filed by the claimant on the procedural ground that the earlier petition had been withdrawn without permission to Such an approach by the MACT, Karnal, reflects a hyper- technical interpretation of procedural rules, which undermines the remedial purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Act is a beneficial legislation designed to ensure that victims of motor vehicle accidents and their dependents receive just compensation promptly. Adopting a rigid procedural stance defeats the very objective of the Act. However, upon a closer examination of the records, it becomes evident that the claimant had specifically moved an application before the MACT, Ambala, seeking withdrawal of the claim petition due to drafting errors. In the application, the claimant explicitly stated that these errors could severely prejudice her interests. She also sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh, ctively contest the case It is evident that the MACT, Ambala, failed to exercise judicial discretion in considering the claimant’s application and erroneously addressing the request In the present proceedings, the MACT, Karnal, recorded a categorical finding that the death of the deceased was caused by the use he MACT, Karnal, further exacerbated the issue by dismissing the fresh claim petition filed by the claimant on the procedural ground that the earlier petition had been withdrawn without permission to - technical interpretation of procedural rules, which undermines the remedial purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Act is a beneficial legislation designed to ensure that victims of motor vehicle ust compensation promptly. RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment has clarified that strict adherence to the procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedu Accident Claims Tribunals. (O&M) The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a consistent line of judgments, has clarified that strict adherence to the procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is not mandatory in proceedings before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. -11- The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a consistent line of judgments, has clarified that strict adherence to the procedural provisions of the Code re is not mandatory in proceedings before Motor The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a consistent line of judgments, has clarified that strict adherence to the procedural provisions of the Code re is not mandatory in proceedings before Motor RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment 5. (O&M) -12- RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment 6. by the MACT, Karnal, is contrary to the settled principles of law and the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, the award of the MACT, Karnal, deserves to entitled to the compensation. Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others (O&M) In sequel of the above, the hyper by the MACT, Karnal, is contrary to the settled principles of law and the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, the award of the MACT, Karnal, deserves to be set aside, and the claimant entitled to the compensation. in FAO No.4301 of 2006 Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others “11. Hon’ble Supreme Court Murti and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board TAC 738] held that the appellants therein to be granted the benefit of beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under -13- he hyper-technical approach adopted by the MACT, Karnal, is contrary to the settled principles of law and the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, the award of be set aside, and the claimants are held FAO No.4301 of 2006, titled as “Akaljit Kaur and Others Vs. Parveen Kumar and Others” held as under:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Murti and others Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board [2022(4) held that the appellants therein to be granted the benefit of beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under technical approach adopted by the MACT, Karnal, is contrary to the settled principles of law and the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, the award of are held Akaljit Ram [2022(4) held that the appellants therein to be granted the benefit of beneficial provision enacted by the Parliament under RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment 22. to compen 23. Supreme Court in Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 Transport Corporation (O&M) Chapter 11 of which Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs. 12. This Court in FAO and Others Vs. Happy and Others held that since Motor Vehicle statute is a beneficial legislation, the Judge should not go into the technicalities of the provisions, under which the application or petition is moved but should apply his judicial mind, as these are only the irregularities and not illegalities which cannot be cured. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the loss caused to the claimants or the relationship or to the victim of the limb cannot be compensated. Still the Court should make every effort by exercising its discretion empathetically. Further, Justice should actually be shown to be delivered by application of judicial mind with intelligence, prudence, care and caution and by showing empathy. The Court decision should be such that they strengthen the trust and confidence of public and litigants in judicial system and judiciary In view of the above, the claimants/appellants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakh. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh 2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, -14- Chapter 11 of which Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the case grievous hurt of Rs.2.5 lakhs. FAO-195-2006 titled as Mamta Happy and Others, decided on 29.05.2024, Motor Vehicle statute is a beneficial legislation, the Judge should not go into the technicalities of the provisions, under which the application or petition is moved but should apply his judicial mind, as these are only the rregularities and not illegalities which cannot be cured. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the loss caused to the claimants or the relationship or to the victim of the limb cannot be compensated. Still the Court should make ort by exercising its discretion empathetically. Further, Justice should actually be shown to be delivered by application of judicial mind with intelligence, prudence, care and caution and by showing empathy. The Court decision trengthen the trust and confidence of public and litigants in judicial system and judiciary.” In view of the above, the claimants/appellants are held entitled So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the Chapter 11 of which Section 164 provides for payment of compensation in the case of death in the amount of Rs.5 lakhs Mamta n 29.05.2024, Motor Vehicle statute is a beneficial legislation, the Judge should not go into the technicalities of the provisions, under which the application or petition is moved but should apply his judicial mind, as these are only the rregularities and not illegalities which cannot be cured. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the loss caused to the claimants or the relationship or to the victim of the limb cannot be compensated. Still the Court should make ort by exercising its discretion empathetically. Further, Justice should actually be shown to be delivered by application of judicial mind with intelligence, prudence, care and caution and by showing empathy. The Court decision trengthen the trust and confidence of In view of the above, the claimants/appellants are held entitled So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State the RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment appellant- enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization. 24. the enhanced amount of compensation al Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the amount of compensation along with interest claimants/appellants are the Tribunal. 25. 26. 27. (O&M) -claimant is granted the interest @ enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization. The the enhanced amount of compensation al Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the amount of compensation along with interest claimants/appellants are directed to furnish their bank accounts details to the Tribunal. Disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. -15- claimant is granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the amount of compensation along with interest in equal shares. The directed to furnish their bank accounts details to Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of is directed to deposit ong with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the amount . The directed to furnish their bank accounts details to RAJ KUMAR 2025.01.14 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgment