HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIWSION BENCH QORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc Appeal No.728 I 2004 Memorandum of Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Present : Shri Alok Dewangan, counsel for the appeiiant. Shri Anand Shukla, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Sudheer Kumar Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (10th April, 2008) Appeiiant Sahanaz Begam, W/o Shri Inayat Ciaimant tuna, Aged about 30 years, R/o Saradapara, Camp - 2 Bhilai, Tahasil and District — Durg (CG) V . Versus Respondents 1. Durg'an singh, S/o shri Jansingh‘ ChandravanshE Aged about 31 years, R/o Aamapara, Ambagam Chowki, District — Rajnandgaon, CG (Driver of the minibus bearing noMP 29 E/OO37) 2. Harjeet Singh, S/o Shri Harvansh Singh Bhatiya R/o Aamapara, Ambagarh Chowki, District — Rajnandgaon, CG (Registered owner of the mini bus bearing noMP 29 E I 0037) 3. Divisional Manager, The New india insurance Company Limited, Kamthi line, Rainandgaon (CG) @ The foliowing order of- the Coutt was passed by ‘ Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimants’ appea! against the award / order dated 28‘“ January, 2004 passed by the Second Additiona! Motor Accident i Claim Tribunal, Durg (henceforth “the Tribunai") in Ciaim Case ‘ No.114/2001, whereby the appellant’s claim petition filed under ‘ Section V166 of the Motpr Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth, “the Act”) u . , was dismissed under Rule 224 of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 (for short, “the Rules”) for non-compliance of Sub - Rule (3) of Rule 220 ofthe Rules. 2) Appellant Sahanaz Begam claimed compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 15.02.2001 when the Minibus bearing registration NoMP 29 — E / 0037 in which she was travelling met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of its driver, resulting in multiple serious injuries to several occupants of the bus including claimant — Sahanaz Begam. 3) The claim petition was filed on 09.08.2001. On 28.01 .2004, after about 2 1/2 years of the filing of the claim petition, the Tribunal noticed for the first time that the documents required to be filed along with the claim petition under Sub — Rule (3) of Rule 220 of the Rules, were not filed by the claimant. The Tribunal, therefore, passed the impugned order dated 28.01 .2004 whereby the appellant’s ciaim petition was dismissed. ()an 4) Shri Alok Dewangan, learned counsei for the appeuant submitted that Sub — Rule (3) of Rule 220 of the Rules does not provide for automatic dismissal of the claim petition in the event of non-filing of the document required to be filed along with the claim petition under Sub —— Rule (3) of Rule 220 of the Ruies. Learned counsel further submitted that as the provisions contained in the Act dealing with grant of compensation to the claimant on account of death or injury i a motor accident are beficial provisions of n ne law, the approach of the Tribunal in dismissing the appellant’s clam i petition onaccount of the non-filing of the document required to be tiled under Sub — Rule (3) of Rule 220 of the Rules has defeated the object sought to be achived by incorporating the provisions for e grant of compensation in the Act. 5) Shri Anand Shukta, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 and Shri Sudheer Kumar Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3 on the other hand supported the impugned order and submitted that as the provisions contained in Sub Rule (3) of Rule 220 of the Rules are mandatory in nature; their non—compliance is bound to result in automatic dismissal of the claim petition. 6) We need not dilate much on the above issue involved in the appeal in view of the decision of the Division Bench of our High Court in MA No.278/2001 (Sukhdev Sal Vs Executive Engineer and ancthxer) wherein while dealing with this issue it was observed in Para 18 as under : “18. For the foregoing discussions, it is apparent that if strict interpretation is given to the word A “shall” used in sub—rule (3) of rule 220 of the / - Rules of 1994 and the provisions are heid mandatory it shall defeat the very purpose of this procedural legislation and also the main legislation on the subject. Therefore, we h‘old that theprovisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 220 of the rules of 1994 are not mandatory and they are directory and the non—compliance of sub-rule (3) of rule 220 has not an automatic consequence of leading to the dismissal of the claim petition." 7t ln View of the above quoted decision of the Division Bench in the case of Sukhdev (supra), the impugned order dated ,a“ r? I 28.01 .2004 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for decision afresh after a giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their pleadings. 8) As the claim petition was filed in the year 2001 and a period of more than 6 years has already elapsed, the Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petition finally within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the Tribunal's records. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 8‘“ May, 2008. 9) Registry is directed to transmit the Tribunal's records immediately. 10) No order as to costs. l l Sdl- Chief Justice? padma