Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 378 (GAU)

Chathia Devi v. Birinchi Doley

2014-03-27

K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2014
1. As could be seen from the judgment of the Tribunal, that a, slip-shod approach is adopted by the Tribunal not only in this case, but in almost all the cases, it is the practice of the Tribunal not to incorporate the full cause title of the petition/plaint. The provisions of CPC, in particular, order VII, rule 1 does not seem to be complied with as a matter of routine by the trial courts, not only in claim petitions relating to Motor Vehicular Accident cases, even in other civil proceedings also. 2. On the part of the plaintiffs, who file a plaint/petition, in the cause title, the particulars required under order VII, rule 1, have to be strictly adhered to. The petitioners/plaintiffs to the proceeding should describe with full particulars like name/husband's name/parent's name, the approximate age, the identifiable address. So also, the names and description of the defendants/opponents, their age, the identifiable address for service of process, have to be clearly stated. 3. In several cases, it is found that the defendants reside in a town or city or area, where large numbers of dwelling houses are there, unless the House Number or other identifiable address is furnished, it would be difficult for the court to serve summons effectively on the defendants/ other side. 4. Insofar as the Motor Vehicle claims are concerned, as a routine manner, it is seen that all the legal heirs are not made parties to the proceedings. It is only in the course of evidence; something is said about the other legal heirs. All the dependants and legal heirs, who are entitled the share of compensation, have to be impleaded and made parties to the proceedings. 5. It is only in the course of evidence; something is said about the other legal heirs. All the dependants and legal heirs, who are entitled the share of compensation, have to be impleaded and made parties to the proceedings. 5. Since under section 1A of the Fatal Accident Act, 1855, the court is empowered to distribute the compensation among the legal dependants such a distribution of compensation is not necessarily in accordance with the shares as envisaged under the personal law of inheritance, but the compensation has to be disbursed and distributed according to the practical considerations and the status and needs of the dependants, in order to have an effective and a legal order of declaration of compensation and its disbursement in accordance With law, it becomes necessary that all the legal heirs, who survived the deceased, have to be made parties and they should be shown in the cause title of the petition, if any of them are not available, immediately for the purpose of filing of the petition, they can be shown as pro forma respondents. 6. A comprehensive Cause Title of the petition/plaint has to be reflected and incorporated in the cause title of the judgment. 7. The judgment should also have an index of the names of the witnesses examined by the parties and the number of documents marked on behalf of the parties With the nature of documents with relation to the exhibits that is marked, should be stated in the index. 8. The absence of the legal requirements envisages under the CPC gives rise to a lot of miscellaneous work to this court and also to the lower appellate court in trying to find out the above said requirements. 9. The Registry is, therefore, directed to circulate this order to all the trial courts for its faithful compliance and also to the Sheristaders dealing with the receipt of the plaints and petitions, who should insist the compliance of these particular, in their absence, the case should not be assigned with any registered number until the needful requirements are fulfilled. 10. One Ashok Kumar Singh died in a motor vehicular accident. The occurrence of accident and the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle are not in dispute. 11. The vehicle is involved in the accident is uninsured. The registered owner of the vehicle is one Nabam Dini. 10. One Ashok Kumar Singh died in a motor vehicular accident. The occurrence of accident and the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle are not in dispute. 11. The vehicle is involved in the accident is uninsured. The registered owner of the vehicle is one Nabam Dini. The respondent No. 1 is said to be the transferee of the vehicle and in possession of the vehicle at the time of the accident, but the transfer in favour of the respondent No. 1 is not registered with the DTO, the Registration Certificate still stood in the name of the respondent No. 2. 12. The respondent No. 1, par contra, submits that he has not purchased the vehicle from the respondent No. 2 and he was not in possession of the vehicle, therefore, denies the liability to pay compensation. The respondent No. 2 has not appeared and remained ex parte. 13. The mother of the deceased had filed the claim petition seeking compensation. The father of the deceased was alive at the time of the death and at the time when petition was filed, but strangely enough, the father is not a party to the petition seeking compensation. The mother of the deceased is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 14. The petitioners, in order to prove the case regarding liability of. respondent No. 1 has produced the police investigation papers, namely, the seizure list. The said seizure list mentions that the sale deed executable by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1, has been seized from the vehicle at the relevant point of time in the custody of the driver. The trial court on the basis of the said material found that the respondent No. 1 is an unregistered transferee of the vehicle and in possession of the vehicle. The respondent No. 1 has also taken the interim custody of the vehicle from the criminal court under section 451 of the Cr.PC. In view of the said material, the trial court found that the respondent No. 1 is the unregistered transferee and in possession of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The contention of the respondent No. 1 that he had not purchased the vehicle appears to be perfidious statement only to avoid liability. The findings of the Tribunal appear to be sound and proper. 15. The contention of the respondent No. 1 that he had not purchased the vehicle appears to be perfidious statement only to avoid liability. The findings of the Tribunal appear to be sound and proper. 15. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the deceased was a student and bachelor, his notional income to be assessed at Rs. 3,000 per month. The father of the deceased died sometime after filing the petition, so mother alone is the surviving respondent. 50% of the income to be deducted towards the personal expenses, thus Rs. 1,500 would enure to the benefit of the dependency. The age of the mother is 45 years, hence, 13 would be the appropriate multiplier. The total loss of dependency would come to Rs.1,500 x 12 x 13 = Rs.2,34,000. In addition to the assessed compensation, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 25,000 towards loss of expectancy and Rs. 10,000 towards the funeral expenses. In all, the claimant is entitled to the compensation to a sum of Rs. 2,69,000 as against Rs. 1,02,000 awarded by the Tribunal, payable by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On the awarded compensation the interest payable is 6% per annum from the date of petition till payment 16. Accordingly the cross-objection is. partly allowed.