Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 272 (MP)

Sheetal Awadhiya v. Neelu

2023-02-16

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2023
ORDER 1. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 30.8.2019 passed by Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Seoni (M.P.) in MACC No.91/2019 by which an application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been rejected. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner is the real sister of deceased Pankaj Awadhiya, who died in a vehicular accident on 26.10.2018. The respondent No.1 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, who is the widow of Late Shri Pankaj Awadhiya. In the said claim petition the petitioner filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for her impleadment on the ground that she was also dependent upon the deceased as she is not only suffering from locomotive disability but she is also a spinster. 3. By the impugned order, the Claims Tribunal has rejected the application only on the ground that the claimant/respondent No.1 has refused to give consent for the impleadment of the petitioner as non-applicant and since the claimant is a dominus litis, therefore, the petitioner cannot be impleaded as nonapplicant against the wishes of the claimant. 4. Challenging the order passed by the Claims Tribunal, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner in her application had made preliminary submissions with regard to her dependency on deceased Pankaj Awadhiya and as per section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, the legal representatives can maintain a claim petition. Therefore, the brother or sister can also maintain a claim petition apart from the widow and parents of the deceased. It is further submitted that the petitioner also could have filed a separate claim petition and in that eventuality, both the claim petitions would have been clubbed together and therefore, by keeping the petitioner away from the claim petition, no fruitful purpose would be served and the view taken by the Claims Tribunal is too technical and contrary to the provisions of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. 5. Refuting the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner could have filed a separate claim petition and she was rightly not joined in the claim petition filed by the respondent No.1. 6. 5. Refuting the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner could have filed a separate claim petition and she was rightly not joined in the claim petition filed by the respondent No.1. 6. The counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 relied upon the judgment passed by the Madras High Court in the case of Malliga v. Diamond Abraham and another decided on 24.9.2018 in MCA No.2368/2015, submitted that even the brother and sister can maintain a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the word 'legal representatives' cannot be narrow down to mean only dependents therefore, the petitioner can file a separate claim petition. However, it is also fairly conceded by the counsel for the respondents No.5 and 6 that filing of a separate claim petition by the petitioner would merely result in multiplicity of litigation and no harm would be caused to any party if the petitioner is also impleaded in the existing claim petition and the monetary compensation would be decided in accordance with their entitlement. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The petitioner is the sister of Late Pankaj Awadhiya. In her application, she had claimed that she is suffering from locomotive disability and is also a spinster. Sister is one of the class-2 legal representative of deceased Pankaj Awadhiya. Whether she was dependent or not cannot be decided at this stage, however, one thing is clear that preliminary submissions with regard to her dependency was specifically made in the application. It is true that the claimant is the dominus litis but all the necessary parties are required to be impleaded in a suit for the simple reason that in absence of all the necessary parties an effective decree cannot be passed. When the petitioner can always file a separate claim petition, then directing her to file a separate claim petition would be nothing but encouraging the multiplicity of the litigation because even if a separate claim petition is filed, ultimately it has to be clubbed with the present claim petition for analogous hearing. 9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal committed a material illegality by rejecting the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 10. 9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal committed a material illegality by rejecting the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. 10. Ex-consequenti, the order dated 30.8.2019 passed by Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Seoni (M.P.) in MACC No.91/2019 is hereby quashed. 11. The application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is hereby allowed. 12. The petition succeeds and is allowed.