Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 799 (MP)

Sushila Devi v. Ramsushil Pandey

2016-09-12

NANDITA DUBEY

body2016
ORDER : Nandita Dubey, J. 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally. 2. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 23-7-2004 passed by Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahdol camp Beohari, in Claim Case No. 08/2003, whereby the Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim petition. 3. Facts giving rise to present appeal in short as stated are that the accident occurred on 18-8-2000, when the bus bearing No. 17-A/3436, in which the deceased Kalyan Prasad was travelling fell down the river due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. 4. The appellants had filed three different claims petitions, out of which two petitions, bearing 32/2001 and 39/2001 were preferred before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sidhi and one petition No. 22/2001 before MACT Beohari. The Claim Petition No. 22/01 filed before MACT Beohari was dismissed on the ground that appellant/petitioner had not come with clean hands and tried to misuse the process of Court by filing three different petitions for same cause before different Courts. 5. The contention of the petitioners that those two cases were filed without their knowledge and application to withdraw those cases have already been filed before the respective Tribunal did not find favour with the learned Tribunal in the case No. 22/01, on the ground that the petitioner/applicant had not come with clean hands and tried to take claim from more than one Tribunal, thereby misusing the process of Court and the claim petition was dismissed at preliminary stage. 6. Out of the other two cases wherein the petitioner/appellant had filed application for withdrawal, the claim case No. 32/2001 was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction and claim case No. 39/2001 was simply withdrawn. Thereafter, the appellants filed another Claim Petition No. 8/2003 before the Claims Tribunal, Beohari. The same was dismissed holding that the dismissal of earlier Claim Petition No. 22/2001, though not on merits, amounts to res judicata. Therefore, the appellant have come before this Court. 7. I have heard Shri Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri D.N. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance Company. 8. The same was dismissed holding that the dismissal of earlier Claim Petition No. 22/2001, though not on merits, amounts to res judicata. Therefore, the appellant have come before this Court. 7. I have heard Shri Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri D.N. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance Company. 8. From the brief narration of the background facts mentioned above, it is apparent that the sole ground on which the Tribunal has declined to grant the relief to the petitioners/appellants is that the dismissal of their earlier Claim Petition No. 22/2001 by the Tribunal vide order dated 18-2-2002 (Annexure A-3), amounts to res judicata. This approach of the Tribunal is totally unwarranted and unsustainable in law. As is evident, there has been no advertence on merits and further the learned Tribunal in order dated 18-2-2002 has not accepted the prayer of the petitioner that she wants to pursue the case No. 22/2001 and had already filed application under Order 23, Rules I and 3, Civil Procedure Code for withdrawal of the case Nos. 32/2001 and 39/2001, pending before the Tribunal at Sidhi. Without waiting for or giving opportunity to the petitioner to withdraw the cases at Sidhi, the Petition No. 22/2001 was dismissed holding that the petitioner had misused the process of Court. 9. On a seemly reading of the order dated 18-2-2002, there is no doubt that the same could not have been treated to have operated as res judicata as held by the impugned order. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of City Municipal Council, Bhalki v. Gurappa (dead) by Legal Representatives and others, 2016(3) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 533 : (2016) 2 SCC 200 has held : "The principle of res judicata is a need of any judicial system that is, to give finality to the judicial decisions of the disputes between parties. It also aims to prevent multiplicity of proceedings between the same parties of the same subject-matter of the lis. An issue which was directly and substantially involved in a former suit between the same parties, and has been decided and has attained finality cannot be reagitated before the Courts again by instituting suit or proceedings by the same parties on the same subject-matter of earlier lis. An issue which was directly and substantially involved in a former suit between the same parties, and has been decided and has attained finality cannot be reagitated before the Courts again by instituting suit or proceedings by the same parties on the same subject-matter of earlier lis. Thus, for the bar of res judicata to operate in the subsequent original suit proceedings, the litigating parties must be the same, and the subject-matter of the suit must also be identical. Further, for the bar of res judicata to operate in the subsequent original suit proceedings, the decision in the former suit must have been decided on merits on the same substantial questions both on facts and in law that would arise in the subsequent original suit." 11. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdamba Prasad v. State of M. P., 2003(2) M.P.L.J. 584 : 2003(1) MPWN 54 has held : "For the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata, the matter must have been adjudicated in "Stricto Sensu" in earlier litigation. The former order of the Labour Court was passed dismissing the case of the petitioner in default. Admittedly, the matter was not adjudicated on merits. If the former case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction or for default or on the ground of technical mistake, the decision being not on merits would not be res judicata in the subsequent proceeding. Thus, in our considered view the order of Tribunal holding that the order of Labour Court dismissing the case of petitioner in default, amounts to res judicata, is contrary to law. Therefore, we have no option except to quash the impugned order (Annexure-A). As we have quashed this order, another order of Tribunal dated 26-2-1999 Annexure-B dismissing the review petition cannot be sustained and it also stands quashed." 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order impugned (Annexure P-4) passed by MACT, Beohari cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the tribunal to decide the same within a period of six months. 13. Parties shall remain present before the Claims Tribunal, Beohari on 24th November, 2016. 14. With the aforesaid direction, this appeal stands disposed of. Parties to bear their respective costs.