Champa Devi and ors. (Smt.) Vs. Dalbhag Singh and ors.

Champa Devi and ors. (Smt.) vs Dalbhag Singh and ors.

Disposition Petition allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Mar 04, 2004

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/756784

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/756784
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
Decided On: Mar 04, 2004
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2317 of 2002
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ] Determination as to Juvenile - Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged oc...

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rule (Rajasthan), 1990 - Rule 10.8

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Champa Devi and ors. (Smt.)

Advocate Rajesh Panwar, Adv.

Respondent

Dalbhag Singh and ors.

Advocate Jagdish Vyas, Adv. for Respondent No. 4

Legal References

Acts: Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rule (Rajasthan), 1990 - Rule 10.8
Cases Referred: Allanoor and Ors. v. Dilip Singh and Ors.
Reported In: III(2004)ACC124; RLW2004(3)Raj1861; 2004(2)WLC633

Excerpt

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. sunil kumar garg, j.1. this writ petition under articles 226 & 227 of the constitution of india has been filed by the petitioners against the respondents on 1.7.2002 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 22.3.2002 (annex.1) passed by the respondent no. 5 learned judge, motor accident claims tribunal, pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the claims tribunal') by which the service on respondents no. 1 and 2 by way of substituted service was closed on account of non- furnishing of process fee and notices by the petitioners- claimants, be quashed and set aside.2. the case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows:-the petitioners-claimants filed a claim petition before the respondent no. 5 claims tribunal, pali for compensation on account of death of one mala ram in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 8.3.1996. in that claim petition, ex-parte orders were passed against the respondent no. 3 mohanlal as he did not put-in appearance despite service of notice on him, but for respondents no. 1 and 2 dalbhag singh and sardul singh respectively, the petitioners-claimants filed pf and notices, but all the times notices were returned unserved. thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioners-claimants on 5.11.2001 for making substituted service on the respondents no. 1 and 2 and that application was allowed and the case was posted on 18.1.2002, but due to some reasons, notices for publication could not be filed by the petitioners-claimants on that day and the case was posted on 22.3.2002 and on that day, the impugned order annex.1 dated 22.3.2003 was passed by the learned claims tribunal. hence, this writ petition.the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners-claimants is that closer of service on respondents no. 1 and 2 by way of substituted service has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, the impugned order annex.1 cannot be sustained and liable to be.....

Full Judgment

Sunil Kumar Garg, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the respondents on 1.7.2002 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 22.3.2002 (Annex.1) passed by the respondent No. 5 learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali (hereinafter referred to as 'the Claims Tribunal') by which the service on respondents No. 1 and 2 by way of substituted service was closed on account of non- furnishing of process fee and notices by the petitioners- claimants, be quashed and set aside.

2. The case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows:-

The petitioners-claimants filed a claim petition before the respondent No. 5 claims Tribunal, Pali for compensation on account of death of one Mala Ram in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 8.3.1996. In that claim petition, ex-parte orders were passed against the respondent No. 3 Mohanlal as he did not put-in appearance despite service of notice on him, but for respondents No. 1 and 2 Dalbhag Singh and Sardul Singh respectively, the petitioners-claimants filed PF and notices, but all the times notices were returned unserved. Thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioners-claimants on 5.11.2001 for making substituted service on the respondents No. 1 and 2 and that application was allowed and the case was posted on 18.1.2002, but due to some reasons, notices for publication could not be filed by the petitioners-claimants on that day and the case was posted on 22.3.2002 and on that day, the impugned order Annex.1 dated 22.3.2003 was passed by the learned claims Tribunal. Hence, this writ petition.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners-claimants is that closer of service on respondents No. 1 and 2 by way of substituted service has resulted in miscarriage of justice and therefore, the impugned order Annex.1 cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside.

No reply was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 New India Assurance Company Ltd. And the respondents No. 1 to 3 have not appeared before this Court despite service of notices on them.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners- claimants and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and gone through the materials available on record.

4. In Dhani Ram and Anr. v. Gurdip Singh and Ors. (1), the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that in claim matters, it is the duty of the Claims Tribunal to ensure and take steps for service of process on non-applicants by claimants.

5. No doubt in the present case, the petitioners-claimants have not filed PF and notices for substituted services on respondents No. 1 and 2, but for that default, it was not in the interest of justice to close the service on respondents No. 1 and 2 by way of substituted service and therefore, the impugned order Annex.1 cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. Apart from this, Ibis Court in Allanoor and Ors. v. Dilip Singh and Ors. (2), has observed that claim petition cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that no steps were taken to get the service effected on the owner and driver of the vehicle, meaning thereby in such matters, the Court should take a liberal view and from this point of view also, the impugned order Annex.1 cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.

7. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order Annex.1 dated 22.3.2002 closing the service on respondents No. 1 and 2 by way of substituted service is liable to be quashed and set aside.

Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the impugned order Annex.1 dated 22.3.2002 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali (respondent No. 5) is quashed and set aside and the respondent No. 5 Claims Tribunal is directed to give one more chance to the petitioners to get the service effected on the respondents No. 1 and 2 by way of substituted service. The Claims Tribunal should also ensure such service on the respondents No. 1 and 2 as the Claims Tribunal has ample power to make service on non- petitioners.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2004 Same Parties Champa Devi and ors. (Smt.) vs Dalbhag Singh and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge Sunil Kumar Garg, J. Acts & Sections Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rule (Rajasthan), 1990 - Rule 10.8

Motor Vehicles