JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—The present appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan dated June 14, 2000. 2. Appellants Rekha Devi and Girish Kant are the mother and brother of deceased Ranjeet Singh. Proforma respondent No. 10, Shri Gian Chand is father of the deceased. Appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for compensation of rupees 5 lakhs. The case of the petitioners, as set out in the claim petition is: 3. Deceased Rajni Kant, on October 29, 1996, was walking on the road when, at about 3.00 p.m., tractor No. HP-17-4056 driven rashly and negligently at a high speed, appeared and hit the deceased. As a result of this accident, deceased received serious injuries and, ultimately, Rajneesh Kant succumbed to the injuries after the accident. It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was the sole bread earner of the family earning about rupees 5,000 per month. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are the legal heirs of the owner of the tractor No. HP-17-4056 involved in the accident. Respondent No. 8 Gian Chand is the driver of the Tractor. New India Assurance Company, respondent No. 9, is the insurer of the offending tractor. 5. The claim is resisted by the respondents. Respondents No. 1 to 8 in their written statement, have taken up a preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable as a similar petition regarding this accident filed by the petitioners titled : Gian Chand v. Gurdass Ram and others, had earlier been dismissed. On merits, it was pleaded that deceased tried to board the tractor from the back side as a result of which he could not balance himself and fell down which resulted in serious injuries and, therefore, the accident took place due to the own fault of the deceased. The Insurance Company in their reply, has also taken the same defence pleading that the present petition was not maintainable as the claimants alongwith respondent No. 10 had filed a similar petition regarding the same accident in December, 1996 and when they realized that the petition was likely in fail, they got the same dismissed in default at the evidence stage and, therefore, the second petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. Insurance company further pleaded that the petitioners are guilty of suppressing true and material facts and on that account too, the petition is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is pleaded that the deceased was gratuitous passenger and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor. It is the further case of the Insurance company that in the previous petition filed by the petitioners aiongwith proforma respondent No. 10 Gian Chand, it was pleaded that deceased at the relevant time, was passenger on the tractor and tell down from the tractor resulting in fatal injuries. The plea of the claimants, it is stated, in the present petition is "mala fide and false with a view to shift the liability. 6. The following issues were settled by the learned Claims Tribunal: I. Whether the (deceased) Rajneesh Kant died in accident as a result of rash and negligent driving of Tractor No. HP-17-4056, by respondent No. 8 (Driver) Gian Chand, on 29.10.1997, as alleged? OPP 2- Whether the petition is not maintainable, in view of dismissal of claim petition titled as Gian Chand v. Gurdass Ram and others, as alleged? OPR 1 to 8. 3. Whether the petitioners are estopped to file this petition due to their own act and conduct, as alleged? OPR 1 to 8. 4. Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, as alleged? OPR 9. 5. Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed being mala fide, as alleged? OPR 9. 6. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation and from whom the petitioners are entitled? OPP 7. Relief. 7. Issue No. 2 was treated as preliminary issue. The case of the petitioners was that they were not aware of any petition having been filed on their behalf by respondent Gian Chand nor did they appoint any counsel to represent them. However, learned Tribunal found that the plea of the petitioners was not convincing as Gian Chand respondent is husband of petitioner Rekha Devi and father of the petitioner Girish Kant. Therefore, it was not probable that they were not aware of the filing of the earlier petition by Gian Chand on their behalf. However, learned Tribunal found that the plea of the petitioners was not convincing as Gian Chand respondent is husband of petitioner Rekha Devi and father of the petitioner Girish Kant. Therefore, it was not probable that they were not aware of the filing of the earlier petition by Gian Chand on their behalf. Learned Tribunal also noticed that in the previous petition, the petitioners had pleaded that deceased had tried to board the running tractor when he fell down and received fatal injuries, whereas, in the present petition, plea taken is that the deceased was going on foot on the road when he was knocked down by the tractor which clearly, according to the learned Tribunal, "shows that in order to put different stand about the accident in question, the petitioners have filed the present petition and allowed the earlier petition to be dismissed in default under Order 9 Rule 8, CPC. Learned Tribunal concluded that filing of the present petition was gross abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, not maintainable". The petition was accordingly dismissed. 8. Feeling dis-satisfied, the petitioners are in appeal. 9. We have heard Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Ms. Jyotsana Dua, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 8. We have also gone through the record with their help. 10. The question which arises for consideration is whether the claim petition Gian Chand v. Gurdass Ram, No. 7-N/2 of 1997 which was dismissed in default under Order 9 Rule 8 on August 3, 1998 was in fact filed by the present petitioners Smt. Rekha and Girish Kant or was validly constituted on their behalf. II. Mr. Kuldip Singh learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, submitted that the petition purported to have been filed by or on behalf of appellants Rekha and Girish Kant was not in fact filed by them and therefore, was not validly constituted. 12. The claim petition which was filed on December 30, 1996 was purported to have been filed by Shri Gian Chand, Smt. Rekha and Girish Kant. The memorandum of parties reads: "BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NAHAN DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P. 1. Sh. Gian Chand S/o Sh. Chiranji Lai (Father) 2. Smt. Rekha w/o Sh. Gian Chand (Mother) 3. Girish Kant s/o Sh. The memorandum of parties reads: "BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NAHAN DISTRICT SIRMOUR, H.P. 1. Sh. Gian Chand S/o Sh. Chiranji Lai (Father) 2. Smt. Rekha w/o Sh. Gian Chand (Mother) 3. Girish Kant s/o Sh. Gian Chand (Brother) all residents of village Majra, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. Petitioners versus 1. Gurdas Ram s/o Sh. Bagga Ram, 2. Ranjeet Singh Sons of Gajju Ram. 3. Dayal Ram, 4. Ram Dass, 5. Guljari Lal, 6. Nikka Ram, 7. Rattan Lai all residents of village Majri, Giri Nagar, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. (Owners of Tractor No. HP-17-4056). 8. Gian Chand S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram R/o village Puruwala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P (Driver of tractor in question). 9. Insurance Company address is to be given by the owner of the tractor HP-17-4056. Respondents." 13. The petition, we notice, was signed by the petitioner No. 1 Shri Gian Chand. The relevant portion reads: Petitioner No. 1 (Gian Chand) Sd/- Gian Chand, Through Counsel Sd/- J.S. Negi, Advocate, Paonta Sahib, H.P. Verification : I, Gian Chand, the above named petitioner No. 1 do hereby verify that the contents of the claim petition from para Nos. 1 to 24 are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. No part of it is false and nothing has been concealed therein. Verified at Paonta Sahib on 2.12.1996. Sd/- Gian Chand Petitioner No. 1 (Gian Chand)". 14. It is significant to note that the vakalatnama which was filed alongwith this claim petition was signed only by Gian Chand, There are no signatures of either Rekha or Girish Kant on this vakalatnama. The claim petition was presented before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by Shri Jagat Singh Negi, Advocate, on 30.12.1996. 15. Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for the pleadings generally which include plaint and the written statement. Rule 14 of Order 6 provides that every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader, if any. The underlying object, in our opinion, of Order 6 Rule 14 is to protect, as far as possible, disputes as to whether a suit has been instituted by the plaintiff or with the knowledge and authority of the plaintiff. Now as noticed earlier, the claim petition was only signed by Gian Chand, father of the deceased and not by the other claimants, namely, Smt. Rekha and Girish Kant. Now as noticed earlier, the claim petition was only signed by Gian Chand, father of the deceased and not by the other claimants, namely, Smt. Rekha and Girish Kant. It is true that omission or mistake in not signing the plaint or petition is an irregularity which can be cured at a later stage by appropriate amendments. It is also true that where several persons institute a suit, it is not necessary that all of them should sign the plaint. In our view, there would be sufficient compliance with Rule 14 of Order 6 if one of them signs the plaint provided such plaintiff signs the plaint with the knowledge and authority of the other plaintiffs. In the present case, the authority and knowledge of the claimants Rekha and Girish Kant, who had not signed the claim petition, is not established. Appearing as PW 1, she categorically denies suggestion of the respondents that they had earlier filed a claim petition which was dismissed. She also denies the suggestion that in that petition, Shri Jagat Singh Negi was their Counsel. She denies the suggestion of the counsel for the Insurance Company that she was party to the earlier petition filed by her husband. Gian Chand, who had signed the earlier petition as also signed the vakalatnama, has not been examined to show that he had the authority or consent of the claimants to file the earlier petition on their behalf or such a petition was filed to the knowledge of the present petitioners. Shri Jagat Singh Negi who appeared for the petitioners, has also not been examined to show that he had the implied authority of claimants Rekha and her son to file that petition. In these circumstances, the earlier claim petition No. 7-N/2 of 1997 cannot be said to have been filed by or on behalf of Rekha and Girish Kant, 16. This apart we notice, Order 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for recognised agents and pleaders. Rule 1 of Order 3 provides for the appearance in judicial proceedings by recognised agent or pleader on behalf of the party, if such party does not appear in person. Such right of a party to a judicial proceedings, to be represented by an Advocate is not a general right but is given by statute. Rule 1 of Order 3 provides for the appearance in judicial proceedings by recognised agent or pleader on behalf of the party, if such party does not appear in person. Such right of a party to a judicial proceedings, to be represented by an Advocate is not a general right but is given by statute. The object of the rule, in our opinion, is to afford facility to a party to perform certain acts, which he is required to do in judicial proceedings in person, through his recognized agent or pleader and also to protect frauds by an unauthorized person taking certain steps without the consent or knowledge of the party concerned. 17. Rule 4 provides for the appointment of Pleader. Rule 4 reads: "4. Appointment of Pleader.—(1) No pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorized by or under a power of attorney to make such appointment. (2) Every such appointment shall be filed in Court and shall, for the purposes of sub-rule (1), be deemed to be in force un4il determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court, or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client." (Emphasis supplied) 18. Bare reading of Rule 4 shows that a pleader or Advocate cannot represent any person in the Court unless : (a) he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing: (b) such document is signed by the person or by his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorized by or under the power of attorney to make such appointment: (c) such appointment (vakalatnama) is filed in the Court, shall be in force unless revoked or determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader as the case may be or until the client or pleader dies or until all the pleadings in the suit are ended so far that particular client is concerned. 19. 19. Now if an Advocate does something which he has no power or capacity to do, what he purports to do indeed has no legal effect. In this case, neither any vakalatnama/power of attorney was signed by the claimants Rekha and Girish Kant nor any memorandum of appearance was filed by Shri Jagat Singh Negi Advocate on their behalf. Therefore, Shri Negi was not competent, in our opinion, to plead or act on behalf of the claimants Rekha and Girish Kant in the claim petition filed by Gian Chand. Shri Negi Advocate, it may be noticed, was empowered to act or plead in that claim petition only by Gian Chand claimant No. 1 as he alone signed the vakalatnama /power of attorney appointing Shri Negi as his Advocate. In the absence of any authority, the previous claim petition purported to be filed on behalf of Rekha and Girish Kant by Shri Jagat Singh Negi cannot be said to be validly constituted claim petition on their behalf. We are supported in our view by the judgment of a Division Bench of Madras High Court. In Nandamani Anangabhima and another appellant v. Modono Mohono Deo respondent, AIR 1937 Madras 239, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court interpreting the provision of Order 3 Rule 4, CPC took a view that if a pleader purports to do something which he has no power or capacity to do, what he purports to do can have no legal effect. The Division Bench held: "It is a case simply of want of authority on the part of the pleader to act. Order 3 Rule 4 says that no pleader shall act unless he has been appointed by a document in writing. This means in our opinion that if the pleader has not been appointed by a document in writing, he is wanting in capacity or competence to act. It is not a question of a defect in the pleaders authority; it is simply a question of want of capacity to act. If a pleader purports to do something which he has no power or capacity to do, we think, it must be clear that what he purports to do can have no legal effect." 20. It is not a question of a defect in the pleaders authority; it is simply a question of want of capacity to act. If a pleader purports to do something which he has no power or capacity to do, we think, it must be clear that what he purports to do can have no legal effect." 20. We, however, hasten to add that had Smt. Rekha and Girish Kant ratified the action taken by Jagat Singh Advocate in filing the earlier claim petition by appointing him as their Advocate, even after the filing of the claim petition, such claim petition will be validly constituted on their behalf. 21. Ms. Dua then contends that even if claim petition was not signed by Rekha and Girish Kant and even if Mr. Jagat Singh Negi, Advocate, had no authority to file such petition on their behalf, it would still be a valid claim petition on their behalf having been filed by one of the legal representatives of the deceased on behalf of the legal representatives under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 22. Sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act, relevant for the purpose, may be reproduced for convenience: "166. 22. Sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act, relevant for the purpose, may be reproduced for convenience: "166. Application for compensation.—(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in subsection (1) of Section 165 may be made— (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.” 23 A careful perusal of the provision shows that an application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act can indeed be made by any of the legal representatives of the deceased but in such application the legal representatives of the deceased, who did not join as claimants in the application, must be impleaded as respondents to the application. The reason is not far to seek. The provision is designed to protect the lawful claimants from fraud or other mal practices. There can be a situation in a given case where a daughter-in-law, to deprive a mother-in-law from her share of compensation, may file an application under Section 166 of the Act without impleading the mother-in-law as a party. It is to obviate such situation that the Legislature, in our opinion, provided for impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased who had not joined the application, as respondents so that they have notice of filing of such application. In our view, if some claimants are not joined in a claim petition, then those claimants will have right to maintain separate claim petition and the filing of the claim petition by one or more of the other claimants will not take away their right to maintain claim petition. In our view, if some claimants are not joined in a claim petition, then those claimants will have right to maintain separate claim petition and the filing of the claim petition by one or more of the other claimants will not take away their right to maintain claim petition. It will also not take away the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide the claim petition so long as the persons who are liable to pay the compensation are made parties to the petition and the claim of the claimants has remained unsettled. 24. In this case, admittedly, Rekha and Girish Kant were not joined as respondents nor any notice went to them in the earlier claim petition. In these circumstances, in our opinion, present petition by mother of. the deceased Smt. Rekha and brother Girish Kant is maintainable irrespective of the fact that they were impleaded as claimants in another petition filed by the father of the deceased though without their consent or authority. 25. The next contention of Ms. Dua is that the second claim petition by the present petitioners is not maintainable as the first claim petition was dismissed in default under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC Ms. Dua refers to Ranjit Singh v. Gurnam Singh and another, 1999 (1) SLJ 1; K.S. Bhoopathy and others v. Kokila and others, 2000 (2) SLJ 1374 and Amrit Kaur and others v. Chaman Lai and another, 1993 ACJ 770 and submits that the only remedy available with the present petitioners was to file an application for the restoration of the claim petition which was dismissed in default. We are afraid, the submission is mis-placed and cannot be accepted. We have already noticed that the previous claim petition was not filed either by or on behalf of the present petitioners and, therefore, there was no question of the petitioners filing an application for restoration of the claim petition, dismissed in default, which was never filed by them. 26. In the end, it is contended by Ms. Dua that the present claim petition is visited by the abuse of the process of the Court. She refers to column Col. 22 of first claim petition where it was stated that the deceased Rajnish Kant was travelling in tractor No. HP-17-4056". "The tractor was driven very carelessly and negligently in high speed by the driver. Dua that the present claim petition is visited by the abuse of the process of the Court. She refers to column Col. 22 of first claim petition where it was stated that the deceased Rajnish Kant was travelling in tractor No. HP-17-4056". "The tractor was driven very carelessly and negligently in high speed by the driver. Due to this reason, driver Gian Chand failed to control the tractor as he was driving it rashly, negligently and carelessly, resulting in fatal accident. The deceased fell down and came under the trolly of the tractor. Whereas, in the second claim petition, the story was changed and it was stated, in para 22 of the petition, that deceased "Rajneesh Kant being a pedestrian was walking on the correct side of the road on 29.10.1996 at about 3.00 p.m."...."when all of a sudden tractor No. HP-17-4056 came there in a high speed being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 8 and struck against the deceased causing severe injuries to him which resulted into his death....." The contention is that the petitioners realizing that they may not get compensation from the Insurance Company, cooked up second version so that Insurance Company is held liable. 27. We need not go into this question as it touches the merits of the case and also for the reason that we have taken the view that the first claim petition was not legally filed by or on behalf of the present petitioners and that the same was filed without their consent and authority. 28. Before parting, we would like to observe that every law is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate on technicalities. Chapter XII of the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation designed to give speedy and inexpensive justice to the victims of the accidents. Therefore, even if two views are possible, we will prefer a view which furthers the legislative intent. It will also be fair and just if the case is decided on merits than on technical objection. 29. No other point is urged before us. 30. For the foregoing reasons, the findings of learned MACT-I, Sirmaur at Nahan, on issue No. 2 are liable to be set-aside and are accordingly set-aside. It is held that the present claim petition is maintainable by the petitioners, 31. 29. No other point is urged before us. 30. For the foregoing reasons, the findings of learned MACT-I, Sirmaur at Nahan, on issue No. 2 are liable to be set-aside and are accordingly set-aside. It is held that the present claim petition is maintainable by the petitioners, 31. The case shall now go back to the learned Tribunal which shall give its findings on the remaining issues after giving appropriate opportunity to the parties of being heard. The claim petition thereafter shall be decided in accordance with law. Any observation made herein above, shall not be construed to be any reflection on the merits of the case which shall be decided by the learned Tribunal on its own merits. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. -