THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NOS.1015, 1022 AND 1023 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER Since all the three revisions are filed against the interlocutory orders passed in O.P.No.342 of 2001, by the claimant in the said O.P., they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. C.R.P.No.1015 of 2009 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khammam in I.A.No.1679 of 2007 in O.P.No.342 of 2001 in rejecting the application filed by the claimant under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151of C.P.C. for amendment of the cause title and description in the claim petition. 3. C.R.P.No.1022 of 2009 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.2008 passed in I.A.No.1270/2007 in O.P.No.342/2001 in rejecting the application filed by the claimant under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amending of the cause title. 4. C.R.P.No.1023 of 2009 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.2008 passed in I.A.No.974 of 2006 in O.P.No.342/2001 in rejecting the application filed by the claimants under Order 22 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to bring the legal representations of the deceased, who is alleged to have died in a motor accident. 5. By order dated 9.2.2008, the court below dismissed the three applications filed by the claimant for amending of the cause title and description in the O.P. and for bringing the legal representations of the deceased on record, who is alleged to have died in the motor accident. 6. From the material available on record, it could be seen that one Mallela Sulochana filed O.P.No.342 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khamma, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her husband – Mallkarjuna Rao, in a motor accident. Subsequently, alleging that her husband died on 25.8.2005, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she filed the present petitions for amendment of the cause title and for bringing the legal representatives on record. By the impugned order dated 9.2.2008 the court below dismissed the three petitions on the ground that since the O.P. was filed by the wife, when the husband was alive and as there is no authorization on his behalf and further when the deceased himself was not on record, the question of allowing his legal representatives to come on record, does not arise and accordingly dismissed the three petitions. 7. The O.P. was filed in the year 2001. The claim of the petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased is that her husband M.Mallikarjuna Rao met with the accident and suffered multiple and grievous injuries due to which he became physically and mentally incapacitated and hence not in a position to give evidence and, therefore, she filed the claim petition in the year 2001 claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by her husband. It is to be noticed that when the wife filed claim petition, the same was entertained and the O.P. was numbered. When the husband was alive and when there is no authorization from her husband, the Tribunal ought to have taken office objection and returned for presenting in an appropriate manner as per law. But the Tribunal failed to do so. It is further to be noticed that the wife of the deceased earlier filed O.P. claiming compensation under ‘no fault liability’ and the same was allowed by granting compensation. Subsequently, as the husband of the petitioner died, to rectify the mistake, the preset applications were filed. At this stage, after a period of about nine years, when the husband of the claimant - petitioner died pending the proceedings, when the legal representatives wants to come on record by amending the cause title and description in the claim petition, the objections raised by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. 8. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation and on technical lapses, the party cannot be deprived of a legitimate claim, which he is entitled to under a statute. The Tribunal ought to have objected and got the defected cured and at this stage on a technical ground, the claim of the claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased, cannot be rejected. However, the Tribunal has to adjudicate the claim based on the evidence and in accordance with law. But on technical lapse, the claim cannot be rejected. 9. At this juncture, it is necessary note sub rule (4) of Rule 476 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 as under: 476: Application for claim: (1). . . (2). . (3). . . (4) Application not be rejected on technical flaw:-- 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. (5). . . (6). . . (7). . . (8). . . 10. From the above sub rule it is clear that the Claims Tribunal shall not reject any application which is filed under the provisions of Chapter X, i.e., liability without fault in certain cases, under any technical flaw, but shall give notice to the applicant and get the defect rectified. In the present case, as noted above, when the wife of the deceased earlier filed O.P. claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her husband under ‘no fault liabilty’ i.e., under Chapter X of the Act, the same was entertained and compensation was granted. If there was any defect, the Tribunal ought to have got the defect rectified, but no such procedure appears to have been followed and the O.P. was allowed and compensation was granted under the said head. Therefore, at this stage, the objection raised by the Tribunal in rejecting to allow the amendment and L.R. petitions is not tenable and the objection raised is purely technical in nature, which is liable to set aside. 11. For the foregoing reasons and considering the averments made by the petitioners in the affidavits filed in support of the petitions, the amendment petitions and the L.Rs. petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. 12. The Tribunal shall dispose of the O.P. in accordance with law, based on the evidence to be made available on record. 13. The revisions are accordingly allowed. No costs. AVS -------------------------------- 21 --08—2009