S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.216/2012. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... S.B. CIVIL CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.17/2012. Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... Judgment Friday dated 14.08.2015. 1/15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. :::
JUDGMENT
::: S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.216/2012. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... S.B. CIVIL CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.17/2012. Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... Date of Judgment ::::: Friday, 14th August, 2015. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. M.C. Bishnoi, for the appellants-claimants. Mr. Bharat Singh, for the cross-objector. Mr. Tirth Raj Singh Sodha, for the respondents. <<>> BY THE COURT (ORAL): CMA No.216/2012:
1. The appellants-claimants have filed the present Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 30.11.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track)-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur camp Sagwara in M.A.C. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.216/2012. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... S.B. CIVIL CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.17/2012. Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... Judgment Friday dated 14.08.2015. 2/15 Case No.97/2009 “Smt. Lalita Devi W/o late Shiv Lal Lauhar & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal S/o Dhoolji Gayri & Ors.”
. by which, the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants was rejected by the learned Tribunal.
2. By the impugned order dated 30.11.2011, the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur camp Sagwara [Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Dungarpur]. had rejected the claim case namely, M.A.C. Case No.97/2009 “Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors.”
..
3. The ground for rejection of the claim petition aforesaid was that earlier the claimants have filed the claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur which was rejected for want of prosecution on 27.09.2006 and, therefore, the present claim petition filed by the mother of the deceased Chunni Lal filed before the MACT, Dungarpur was barred by the provisions contained under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and another reason was that the wife of the deceased Chunni Lal namely, Smt. Basanti Devi had contracted another 'Nata' marriage with some other person namely, Raman Lal, and she lived with the deceased Chunni Lal only for a period of one year after her marriage with the S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.216/2012. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... S.B. CIVIL CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.17/2012. Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... Judgment Friday dated 14.08.2015. 3/15 deceased Chunni Lal.
4. The deceased Chunni Lal died in an unfortunate accident on 26.04.2004 which occurred when Chunni Lal was going on his cycle in village Bheeluda towards the house of his uncle Mohan Lal, he was hit by the insured Truck No.RJE-8957 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the non-applicant No.1 Bhagwan Lal S/o Dhoolji Gayri. The deceased Chunni Lal was 26 years of age and was working with M/s Jai Maa Tripura Building Works, Sagwara.
5. The relevant portions of the impugned order dated 30.11.2011 of the learned Tribunal are quoted herein below for ready reference:- “(22) चक उक क म य चच प र गण अनपस रत म व अप र स. 3 ब"म पन" ववद न % अच&वक उपस रत म ख र)ज हई ह-, इसल ए इस प) आदश 9 तनयम 8 स"प"स" प व& न ग ह4 ह5 व ब आदश 9 तनयम 9 स"प"स" अनस ) प र गण द) ह ग क म य चच स. 97/09 इस अच& )ण समक प क ए ज न स वसज7 ह-, बस8 प र गण द ) उक ददन 27.09.06 4 ख र)ज हई क म य चच 4 ह: पनज वव (restore) ) स र, इसल ए ववद न % अल;; ष श" न ) यण द4ष" S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.216/2012. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... S.B. CIVIL CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.17/2012. Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... Judgment Friday dated 14.08.2015. 4/15 द) प नय तय दष न 2004 एस"ज 504 ) ज. ववम दव" व अनय बन म ) जनA म ) व अनय ह ग प )ण म प र गण 4ई मदद नह: ) ह- , कयBक उक नय तय दष व मम म आदश 9 तनयम 4 र आदश 7 तनयम 11 स"प"स" प व& न ववच )ण"य र, आदश 9 तनयम 8 व 9 स"प"स" प व& न ववच )ण"य नह: र । (23) ववद न % अल;; ष श" एन.ए . द4ष" द) नय तय दष 2002 एस"ज 214 इ ह ब द नशन इनDय )स . ल . बन म महफज बगम व अनय म अल;तन& 7र) ववच& स रत आ& ) प) ददय गय यह 7 क म4ट) दर7टन द व अच& )ण समक ववच )ण"य क म य चच ओ प) स"प"स" प व& न ठ4) पव7 ग नह: ह4 ह5, ;" व" य7 नह: ह-, कयBक ) ज. म4ट) व हन तनयम 1990 द ) म4ट) दर7टन द व अच& )ण समक बब य7व दहयB प) आदश 9 स"प"स" प व& न ग क ए गए ह5 र उक नय तय दष व मम म अप" ट/ब"म पन" द ) अल; ख प) ड ईववग ईसस फ4ट4 पत पश क ए ज न प) उस स कय म ग ह प) आपवN उठ ई गई र", सजस प) म नन"य उचच म नय य य द ) यह अल;तन& 7र) क य गय ह- क म4ट) द व दर7टन अच& )ण ए तनयलम द:व न" नय य य नह: ह- व ऐस अच& )ण प) स"प"स" य स कय अच&तनयम ठ4) तनयम ग नह: ह4 ह5 । (24) जबक म) समक ह ग प )ण म आदश 9 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.216/2012. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... S.B. CIVIL CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.17/2012. Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... Judgment Friday dated 14.08.2015. 5/15 स"प"स" प व& न 1990 तनयमB द ) अच& )ण समक बब य7व दहयB प) पष रप स ग क ए गए ह5 । xxx (27) जह परय श"म " बस " दव" द ) प स गन क म य चच स. 385/09 स& )ण"य पश ह-, 4 चक उस द ) यह परम क म य चच ह: प गई ह- र पव7 म उदयप) म प क म य चच म उस म" ;" नह: हई र", इसल ए उस यह क म य चच स& )ण"य नह: ह4न आ& ) प) 4 ख र)ज नह: ज स " ह- । (28) क न गव ह न एडब8य-1 ड य , एडब8य-3 कम" व एडब8य-4 ईश) सशपर रनB र पदलश7 )व ए गए प र य श"म " बस " दव" शपर पत पदश7-9, एफआईआ) स. 239/02 र न स गव ड म प एफआ) पदश7-10, परम सचन र)प4ट7 पदश7-11, प र य श"म " बस " दव" &) 164 स"आ)प"स" ह उक एफआईआ) म खबद क ए गए सशपर रन पदश7-12 र न4ट): पसब गव ह एडब8य-3 श"म " कम" , एडव4 ट द ) स& र) )सज ट) पत पदश7-13 ए स एव वय प र य एडब8य-2 श"म " बस " दव" द ) सज)ह म क ए गए रनB स यह पष ह- क प र य श"म " बस " दव" अपन ववव ह बद व ए वष7 ह: अपन पत मZ चनन" स र ब [) पत" S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.216/2012. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... S.B. CIVIL CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.17/2012. Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... Judgment Friday dated 14.08.2015. 6/15 )ह: र" र उस बद क स" )मण पत ऊ ) ज" पच तनव स" खम) सज ब सव ड सर न ववव ह ) सम ज र)व ज अनस ) ब [) पत" )ह )ह: ह-, इसल ए वह म Z चनन" ववव दह पत" नह: म न" ज स " ह- व ब वह मZ चनन" व र)स ह4न आ&) प) उस मतZ य बद दय कत पत 7 ) लश प त_ ल ए ह ग क म य चच पश )न ल ए अच& Z नह: र", न ह: वह 4ई कत पत 7 ) लश प _ ) स " ह- । (29) अ : उपयक 7 सम वववचन नस ) इस ववव द तनण7य ब"म पन" पक म प र गण ववरद क य ज ह- ।" 6. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.11.2011, the claimants namely, Smt. Lalita Devi (mother of the deceased Chunni Lal) and two major brothers of the deceased Chunni Lal namely, Daya Lal and Praveen Kumar have filed the present Misc. Appeal before this Court questioning the impugned order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur camp Sagwara.
7. The learned counsel Mr. M.C. Bishnoi appearing for the appellants-claimants urged that the rejection of the claim petition earlier by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur could not have been treated as res judicata or a bar for S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.216/2012. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... S.B. CIVIL CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.17/2012. Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... Judgment Friday dated 14.08.2015. 7/15 maintaining the present claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur where the present appellants-claimants resided and, therefore, the subsequently filed claim petition deserved to be decided on merits which the learned Tribunal failed to do, therefore, the case needs to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal concerned for decision afresh on merits in accordance with law. The learned counsel Mr. M.C. Bishnoi, however, submitted that the wife of the deceased namely, Smt. Basanti Devi, having contracted a 'Nata' marriage with some Raman Lal was not entitled to claim any share in the compensation payable on account of death of Chunni Lal. However, the learned counsel Mr. Bharat Singh appearing for the cross-objector Smt. Basanti Devi submitted that the Smt. Basanti Devi has been impleaded as party- respondent by the claimants in the claim petition as well as in the present Misc. Appeal also, therefore, she is very much entitled to claim her share in the compensation along with the mother of the deceased Chunni Lal namely, Smt. Lalita Devi.
8. Opposing these submissions, the learned counsel Mr. Tirth Raj Singh Sodha appearing for the respondent insurer namely, National Insurance Company Ltd. submitted that the S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.216/2012. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... S.B. CIVIL CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.17/2012. Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... Judgment Friday dated 14.08.2015. 8/15 claim petition in question has rightly been rejected by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur as no sufficient reasons were explained by the claimants for filing another claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur. The learned counsel also opposed the claim petition's maintainability filed on behalf of the wife of the deceased Chunni Lal namely, Smt. Basanti Devi, as she lived with the deceased Chunni Lal for a period of one year after her marriage with the deceased Chunni Lal and thereafter, she had contracted 'Nata' marriage with one Raman Lal and since then, she lived with Raman Lal.
9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the record of the case, including the reasons mentioned by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order dated 30.11.2011, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur camp Sagwara is not sustainable and the matter deserves to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal for decision afresh. No decision on merits has been rendered by any of the two Tribunals in question on the claim petitions filed S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.216/2012. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... S.B. CIVIL CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.17/2012. Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... Judgment Friday dated 14.08.2015. 9/15 by the claimants. The rejection of the earlier claim petition by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur for want of prosecution is without a decision on merits.
10. The strict provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure where the civil rights of the parties are determined do not bar the liberal interpretation of such rules and procedure under the Motor Vehicles Act wherein, the compensation for the persons suffering injuries or death are to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the said MV Act. The purpose of the M.V. Act is to provide for just and fair compensation after the death or injury which occurred on account of use of motor vehicle and the provisions for payment of compensation under no fault liability on the basis of claim petition filed under Section 163-A or fault liability on the basis of negligence and loss of income proved under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Special Tribunals have been constituted under the said Act. Mere application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure for guidance of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals does not mean that the Tribunals should strictly and literally construe such provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and prefer rejection of the claim petitions filed under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, rather S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.216/2012. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... S.B. CIVIL CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.17/2012. Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... Judgment Friday dated 14.08.2015. 10/15 than determining compensation on the established facts in accordance with law. The impugned order shows total lack of following the object and spirit of the said Chapter of the Motor Vehicles Act.
11. In the circumstances of the case, the present matter deserves to be sent back for decision afresh by the learned Tribunal on merits. The respective rival claims about the entitlement of only the mother of the deceased namely, Smt. Lalita Devi and the entitlement of two major brothers namely Daya Lal and Praveen Kumar are left open also to be determined by the learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence to be led before it by the parties and in accordance with the relevant provisions. Any pronouncement on these issues by this Court at this stage would be pre-mature since the matter is being remanded back to the learned Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law. The case of Smt. Basanti Devi is separately dealt with hereinafter in her cross-objections.
12. Accordingly and in view of the above, the present Misc. Appeal (No.216/2012) filed on behalf of the appellants- claimants-Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. stands allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.216/2012. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... S.B. CIVIL CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.17/2012. Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... Judgment Friday dated 14.08.2015. 11/15 30.11.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur camp Sagwara is set aside; and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh in accordance with law within a period of six months from today. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur in the first instance on 07.09.2015.
13. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur and to the parties concerned forthwith.
14. Record of the Tribunal below may be sent back immediately. CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.17/2012:
1. The cross-objector Smt. Basanti Devi, the ex-wife of the deceased Chunni Lal has filed these cross-objections in connected S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3216/2012 “Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors.”
. in which, the present cross-objector Smt. Basanti Devi was also impleaded as defendant-respodnent. The claim petition (No.97/2009 “Smt. Lalita Devi W/o late Shiv Lal Lauhar & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal S/o Dhoolji Gayri & Ors.”
. ) was, however, rejected by the S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.216/2012. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... S.B. CIVIL CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.17/2012. Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... Judgment Friday dated 14.08.2015. 12/15 learned Tribunal against which, the the claimants have filed the aforesaid Misc. Appeal, which has been allowed by this order passed today remanding the case back to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur for decision afresh on merits in accordance with law.
2. The present cross-objections registered at number 17/2012 were filed by Smt. Basanti Devi, the ex-wife of the deceased Chunni Lal even though the learned Tribunal in the impugned order had observed that the non-claimant Smt. Basanti Devi had contracted a 'Nata' marriage with another person namely, Raman Lal, after living with the deceased Chunni Lal only for a period of one year, therefore, she was no- longer a member of the family of the deceased Chunni Lal and his dependent and, therefore, also she is not entitled to claim any share in the compensation payable because of the death of Chunni Lal on account of the said accident, if any, awarded by the learned Tribunal.
3. In the present memo of cross-objections and as argued by the learned counsel Mr. Bharat Singh appearing on behalf of the cross-objector Smt. Basanti Devi also, the only averment made in the memo of cross-objections is that the 'Nata' S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.216/2012. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... S.B. CIVIL CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.17/2012. Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... Judgment Friday dated 14.08.2015. 13/15 marriage was not contracted by the cross-objector Smt. Basanti Devi during the life-time of the deceased Chunni Lal and this fact is totally wrong, as she had contracted 'Nata' marriage after the death of Chunni Lal with one Raman Lal and is living with her. The learned counsel submitted that as the cross-objector Smt. Basanti Devi had not contracted the 'Nata' marriage during the life-time of Chunni Lal, therefore, she is still legally wedded wife of the deceased Chunni Lal and, therefore, she is entitled to claim share in the amount of compensation along with the mother of the deceased, if any, awarded by the learned Tribunal.
4. It is noticed that no evidence was led and no positive averment has been made by the cross-objector Smt. Basanti Devi, as to whether and when she had actually contracted the 'Nata' marriage or not, as noticed by the learned Tribunal in para-28 of the impugned order dated 30.11.2011 which is also quoted herein below for ready reference:- (28) ............................ वय परय एडब8य-2 श"म " बस " दव" द ) सज)ह म क ए गए रनB स यह पष ह- क परय श"म " बस " दव" अपन ववव ह बद व ए वष7 ह: अपन पत मZ चनन" स र ब [) पत" )ह: र" र S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.216/2012. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... S.B. CIVIL CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.17/2012. Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... Judgment Friday dated 14.08.2015. 14/15 उस ब द क स" )मण पत ऊ ) ज" पच तनव स" खम) सज ब सव ड सर न ववव ह ) सम ज र)व ज अनस ) ब [) पत" )ह )ह: ह- , इसल ए वह म Z चनन" ववव दह पत" नह: म न" ज स " ह- व ब वह म Z चनन" व र)स ह4न आ&) प) उस मतZ य बद दय कत पत 7 ) लश प त_ ल ए ह ग क म य चच पश )न ल ए अच& Z नह: र", न ह: वह 4ई कत पत 7 ) लश प _ ) स " ह- ।" 5. The averments made by the cross-objector Smt. Basanti Devi in the memo of cross-objections are vague and are not specific. However, it is noticed from her cross-examination that she had actually contracted a 'Nata' marriage with one Raman Lal and, as at present, living with the said person. This Court is of the opinion that the validity of so-called custom of 'Nata' marriage, is itself in serious doubt and open to challenge in terms of the law enacted by this country in the form of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and, therefore, allowing the cross-objector Smt. Basanti Devi to maintain the present claim petition, for compensation for the death of her ex-husband Chunni Lal with whom, she lived only for a period of one year after her marriage with him, will not be justified. Mere impleadment of Smt. S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.216/2012. Smt. Lalita Devi & Ors. Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... S.B. CIVIL CROSS-OBJECTIONS No.17/2012. Smt. Basanti Devi Vs. Bhagwan Lal & Ors. .... Judgment Friday dated 14.08.2015. 15/15 Basanti Devi in the claim petition filed by the mother of the deceased namely, Smt. Lalita Devi along with two major brothers of the deceased Chunni Lal namely, Daya Lal and Praveen Kumar, does not confer any right upon the cross- objector Smt. Basanti Devi to claim any share in the amount of the compensation, if any, awarded by the learned Tribunal on account of death of Chunni Lal. In the circumstances of the case, the cross-objections filed by Smt. Basanti Devi are liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
6. Accordingly and in view of the above, this Court does not find any force in the cross-objections filed by Smt. Basanti Devi and, therefore, the Cross-Objections No.17/2012 are liable to be dismissed and the same are accordingly dismissed.
7. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur and to the parties concerned forthwith. (Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J.
//Mohan// 67 (FD) & 68 (FD)