Civil Revision No. 4995 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4995 of 2008 Date of decision:- 10.3.2009. Bimla Devi and another ...Petitioners Versus Raj Bala and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. B.S. Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. Respondent No.1 ex-parte (vide order dated 05.12.2008). Mr. Anil Rathee, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.2. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3. JASWANT SINGH J. By filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 10th of June, 2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the application, filed by the respondents under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC for rejection of the claim petition filed by the petitioners-claimants. Briefly, the facts are that on 5th of December, 2007, petitioners Bimla Devi and Dalip Kumar i.e. Widow and son of the deceased Balbir Singh filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on account of death of Balbir Singh in an accident, caused by respondent No.1 Raj Bala by driving Jeep bearing No. Civil Revision No. 4995 of 2008 -2- HR24/8400, belonging to the respondent Department, in rash and negligent manner. During the pendency of the claim petition, it appears that D.C. Sirsa-respondent in the claim petition assured the petitioners-claimants that if they withdrew their claim petition, then petitioner No.2-Dalip Kumar i.e. son of the deceased would be appointed on a Government job. Accordingly, in view of the assurance, petitioners-claimants on 13.2.2008 withdrew their claim petition as 'dismissed as withdrawn'. Copy of the order dated 13.2.2008 is (Annexure P-1). In pursuance to the aforesaid assurance, D.C. Sirsa issued an order dated 26.2.2008 (Annexure P-2) thereby engaging petitioner No.2- Dalip Kumar on the post of Mali-cum-Chowkidar on D.C. rates with a clear stipulation that it is not a Government job. In the light of the fact that the respondents had backed out of their earlier assurance, the petitioners- claimants were constrained to file another claim petition, wherein the respondents have moved an application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC alleging that earlier claim petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the claimants without getting permission to file fresh one on the same cause of action and therefore, the second claim petition was not maintainable. Petitioners- claimants contested the application. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings and after hearing the parties, allowed the application moved by the respondents vide its order dated 10th of June, 2008 thereby dismissing the claim petition filed by the petitioners-claimants. Hence, the present petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. Civil Revision No. 4995 of 2008 -3- After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions, I am of the opinion that the revision petition deserves to be allowed. It is not disputed that the earlier claim petition, filed by the petitioners-claimants, was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.2.2008 on the basis of the assurance, given by respondent i.e. D.C. Sirsa that petitioner/claimant No.2- Dalip Kumar shall be given Government service, perusal of the order dated 13.2.2008 (Annexure P-1) makes it manifestly clear. Thus, the withdrawal was conditional, based on the respondents giving appointment to petitioner/claimant No.2-Dalip Kumar on Government post. It is also admitted that D.C. Sirsa, vide his order dated 26.2.2008 (Annexure P-2) engaged petitioner/claimant No.2-Dalip Kumar on the post of Mali-cum-Chowkidar on D.C. rates with a clear stipulation that it is not a Government job, thus, resiling from their assurance for giving Government service as engagement on D.C. rates on the post cannot be termed as appointment to a service. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioners-claimants would have been justified in reviving their earlier claim petition itself, however, instead they chose to file a fresh application, which in the facts of the case is maintainable for the reason that the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC are applicable only to civil suits besides the earlier withdrawal being a conditional withdrawal. The counsel for the respondents have not been able to show any provision under Chapter 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which shows that the provisions of Order 23 Order 1 CPC are applicable to claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is beneficial piece of legislation meant for the benefit of the claimants. It is well settled that the rules and procedures are meant to advance the cause of justice rather than scuttle the same on hyper- Civil Revision No. 4995 of 2008 -4- technicalities. In view of the above, order dated 10.6.2008 is quashed. It is held that the claim petition, filed by petitioners-claimants is maintainable. However, it is clarified that if the petitioners-claimants have filed another similar claim petition for the said accident at Bhiwani, then they shall be at liberty to pursue either of them only. March 10, 2009 (JASWANT SINGH) vj JUDGE