THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A No.719 of 2003 Date: 03.09.2010 Between: Khalid Ansari. …………Appellant. And K.Sanjeeva Rao and another. ……..Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A No.719 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred by the claimant against the order passed in O.P.No.132 of 2000, dated 11.9.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the O.P filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 on the sole ground that the O.P was instituted by the appellant as a minor without being represented by a guardian or next friend. The appellant filed the O.P seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the respondent contending that on 21.3.2000, when he was proceeding on motor cycle bearing registration No.AP13 C 8789 as a pillion rider from Mahaboobnagar to Hyderabad, a lorry bearing registration No.ATK 466 belonging to the 1st respondent herein, hit the motor cycle as a result of which, he received multiple fractures and other injuries. The 1st respondent herein remained exparte and the 2nd respondent/insurance company resisted the claim. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated the necessary issues, and thereupon, both the parties adduced evidence. After the conclusion of the trial, the matter was taken up for arguments. During the course of the arguments, it appears that the 2nd respondent/insurance company raised an objection that the claimant was a minor as on the date of filing of the O.P., therefore, the O.P ought not to have been filed by the claimant himself, without being represented either by a guardian or by next friend. This contention was based on the admission of the claimant himself during the course of his evidence. The claimant stated that his date of birth was 26.1.1983. The O.P was filed on 9.5.2000. Therefore, he was only aged 17 years, 3 Months and 13 days. Therefore, the claimant was a minor. The Tribunal accepted the contention and dismissed the O.P as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal is filed. Heard Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. None appeared for the respondent-Insurance Company. It is true that the date of birth of the claimant was 26.1.1983 and he was below 18 years when the O.P was filed on 9.5.2000. The O.P therefore, should have been filed not by himself but through his guardian or next friend. But if the O.P was not instituted without being represented by a guardian or next friend, it cannot be dismissed merely on this ground. The procedure in filing claim petitions is prescribed under the A.P Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. Under Rule 476, every application in the case of claim under Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shall be made in form CWF (claim without fault); under Clause (3) of the said Rule, every claim under Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act be adjudicated by the Tribunal summarily complying with the principles of natural justice; Clause (4) thereof prescribes that the Claims Tribunal shall not reject any application made as per the provisions of Chapter X of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the ground of any technical flaw, but shall give notice to the applicant and get the defect rectified. The Tribunal, thereupon, would proceed to consider the claim as per Clause (5) to Clause (7) to (9) thereof. The object of Clause (4), which requires that a claim should not be rejected on any technical flaw is obvious and the same should be considered in the light of the object of legislation. It is well settled by catena of judgments of the Apex Court, which are binding on all the courts under the constitutional mandate of Article 141 that the Motor Vehicles Act, in the matter of award of compensation to the victims of motor accidents, is a beneficial legislation. It is enacted to compensate the loss and provide succour to the claimants/dependants/ victims of the motor accidents. Clause (4) of Rule 476 is required to be understood keeping the said object in view. The said provision enacts a prohibition not to reject any application made under the provisions of Chapter X of the Act on the ground of any technical flaw. A technical flaw is a mistake, which does not go to the root of the matter. It does not affect the merits of the case. A technical flaw is always a curable defect. Institution of a petition by a minor without being represented by a guardian or next friend would not by itself affect the merits of the case nor it goes to the root of the matter. The said defect is curable in order to render substantial justice. In the light of the provisions of Clause (4) Rule 476, in my considered view, the Tribunal ought to have directed the appellant to rectify the petition. It may be pointed out that these defects were pointed out only during the course of the arguments and not earlier. In the circumstances, the appellant cannot be denied substantial justice on account of the technical defect as pointed out by the Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the Tribunal is not sustainable. Having held so, the question that arises for consideration is whether at this stage the claim petition should be returned for rectification and proceed with further trial as it stood on 9.5.2000 on which date the O.P was filed. It is already noticed that the claimant was 17 years, 3 months and 13 days old as on that date. The evidence in the O.P was commenced on 7.3.2002 by which time, the appellant had already attained majority. Having regard to the same, I am of the opinion that the claim petition at this stage need not be returned. The further question is as to what is the appropriate order to be passed in this appeal. As noted earlier, the evidence in full has been recorded and the petition reached the stage of arguments. That being so the issues relating to rash and negligence, quantum of compensation and the liability of the respective respondents alone remain to be considered. This is an exercise, which should be undertaken by the primary Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the matter is liable to be remanded for consideration on the said issues. The appeal is therefore allowed setting aside the impugned order and remanding the same to consider and dispose of the O.P as observed above on the basis of the evidence already recorded after due notice to all the parties. The Tribunal is requested to dispose of the petition as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Date:03.09.2010. mrb