Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2344 (RAJ)

Savitri Devi v. Daljeet Singh S/o Jangir Singh

2022-09-01

FARJAND ALI

body2022
JUDGMENT : This Misc. Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment dated 25.04.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in MACT Claim No.76/1999 whereby the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anoopgarh, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) rejected the claim filed by the appellants/claimants mainly on the premise that since the claim petition has been dismissed to the extent of respondents No.1 and 2 i.e., the driver and owner of the vehicle respectively, therefore, the sole respondent No.3 cannot be held responsible for paying the amount of compensation. 2. Bereft of elaborate details, the facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the appellants herein are the legal representatives/successors of deceased Devi Lal, who met with an accident on 25.03.1996 at about 6:30 p.m. near the Police Station Gharsana. A criminal case was also registered to this effect. The death of deceased Devi Lal in a vehicular accident is not under dispute and the appellants are his legal representatives is also not a question to moot. 3. The claim petition was filed by the appellants-claimants on 31.07.1996 upon which, the learned Tribunal directed to issue summon/notice to all the three respondents. It appears that the respondent No.3 had been duly served but despite several efforts, the service upon the respondents No.1 & 2 could not be effected. The learned Tribunal gave ample opportunities to the appellants to serve the respondents through regular mode of process. The application filed by the appellants under Order 5, Rule 20 of the CPC was allowed Vide order dated 16.11.2000. Notices were issued and the appellants were allowed to effect service upon the respondents through publication of notices in daily newspaper ‘Punjab Kesari’ having circulation at Patiyala. Time and again, opportunities were afforded to the appellants for publication of notice in daily newspaper but to no avail and the matter got adjourned on several occasions for this reason alone. Thus, lastly, vide order dated 28.09.2001, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim against the respondents No.1 and 2 for non-compliance of the order and for failing to get the service effected upon them despite several occasions. The claim petition was directed to be proceeded further against the respondent No.3 only i.e. the Insurance Company. Thus, lastly, vide order dated 28.09.2001, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim against the respondents No.1 and 2 for non-compliance of the order and for failing to get the service effected upon them despite several occasions. The claim petition was directed to be proceeded further against the respondent No.3 only i.e. the Insurance Company. Thus, the claim petition came to be rejected vide order dated 25.04.2003 and the same has been assailed herein by way of filing this Misc. Appeal. 4. Mr. N.L. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the matter pertains to a beneficial legislation and the claim petitions are not required to be rejected on the ground of technicalities as the outcome deprives dependent of the deceased to get fair and just compensation. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim petition in toto instead of, rejecting the same on the premise of non-service upon the respondents No.1 & 2. The appellants-claimants furnished process fee for effecting service upon the respondents No.1 & 2 but when the ordinary task could not be fructified, therefore, an application on their behalf was filed for substituted service. It is, therefore, prayed that a lenient view is required to be taken for affording further opportunity to the appellants-claimants to get the notices published in daily newspaper having circulation in District Patiyala, Punjab. 5. Per contra, Shri Sanjeev Johari, Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. Tapendra Sankhla, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants-claimants. It is contended that ample opportunities were granted to the appellants to get the service effected upon the unserved respondents No.1 & 2 but they paid no heed and the trial got protracted on this count alone. The claim petition was filed way back in the year 1999 and till 2001, the learned Tribunal afforded several opportunities to the claimants for effecting service/substituted service upon the unserved respondents, however, a casual and a lackadaisical approach has been opted on behalf of the appellants, therefore, they do not deserve any lenient view. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Indisputably, opportunities were granted to the appellants claimants to get the service effected upon the unserved respondents No.1 & 2. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Indisputably, opportunities were granted to the appellants claimants to get the service effected upon the unserved respondents No.1 & 2. When the service through regular mode could not be fructified, the appellants were given opportunity of substituted service by issuance of notice in daily newspaper. Yet, this Court is of the firm view that the procedural defects which do not go into the roots of the matter should not be permitted to defeat just cause because as far as possible, a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of procedural irregularity which is curable. Marcus Cicero, the academically skeptic Roman statesman and scholar, has given the maxim ‘Salus populi supreme lex esto’ in his book titled ‘De Legibus’ which means that the welfare (health, good, salvation, felicity) of the people should be the supreme law and the philosophy of this principle is speaking to this Court’s conscience in the present case. 8. Although due diligence is required to be made by the claimants yet they cannot be left remediless for the mistake done by them or by their counsel in failure to deposit the publication fee and get the notice published in the daily newspaper. Since it is a beneficial legislation, therefore, this Court feels persuaded to afford one more opportunity to the appellants-claimants to make serious efforts to get the service effected upon the unserved respondents No.1 & 2 instead of affirming the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal by which the claim petition filed by the claimants was rejected. 9. Accordingly, the Misc. Appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 25.04.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Anoopgarh in MACT Case No. 76/1999 is hereby quashed and set aside. It is ordered that the matter be remanded back to the learned Tribunal with the specific direction that upon re-registration of the claim petition to its original number, the appellants-claimants shall get a copy of notice from the concerned clerk and shall submit a proof of service in the form of a copy of newspaper before the Tribunal within a period of two months from taking the same from the concerned clerk and thereafter, the learned Tribunal shall proceed in accordance with law and decide the claim petition afresh without being influenced by its earlier judgment.