MV Act | Tribunal Should Not Dismiss Application For Compensation Merely For Non-Joinder Of Party: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that motor accident claims under the Motor Vehicle Act (MV Act) cannot be dismissed for non-joiner of parties.

While setting aside the order of Motor Vehicle Tribunal, the Court noted that the claim was rejected, "only because the mother was not impleaded as party."

Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "Learned Claim Tribunal while deciding the claim petition adjudicated upon the petition like a trial where principles of Code of Civil Procedure are strictly applied, whereas it failed to appreciate the very fact that as per Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, once the application for compensation is filed before it, the claim should not be dismissed for non-joinder of party."

The Court was hearing an appeal against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in 2006, whereby the claim of appellant had been rejected.

In 2004, Anguish Kumar died in a motor accident after being hit by a TATA Sumo car, and his legal heirs filed a plea for compensation in the Tribunal.

The appellants contended that the Tribunal even after observing and determining the amount of compensation of Rs.3 lakhs to be payable, dismissed the claim petition only on the ground of non-joinder of mother of the deceased either as co-petitioner or as peroforma respondent. 

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that the Tribunal decided that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of TATA Sumo.

Perusing Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Court observed that, "where the death has resulted from the accident, the application for compensation may be filed by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased."

Reliance was placed on High Court's decision in New India Insurance Company Vs. Janak [FAO No.120 of 2003], wherein it was held that, "Even the issue of whether a non-impleadment of all legal representatives would be material, has been considered literally by all High Courts including this Court where the consistent line of authority is that such a defect will not have a bearing to the maintainability of the petition. The law does not require that all the legal representatives of a deceased should be impleaded in a claim petition."

In the lighty of the above, the Court set aside the award and directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.5,82,240 with an interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of realization.

The Court also directed that out of the total compensation amount, the Tribunal shall disburse 60% of the amount to the widow of the deceased), 20% each to the son and daughter of the deceased respectively.

Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for the appellants. 

Paul S. Saini, Advocate with Vipul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3.

 Title: Smt. Kaushal and Others v. Raj Kamal and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 128

Click here to read/download the order