HARYANA GLUE WORKS Vs. KAPOOR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the appeals are connected, the former for damages caused to the vehicle which was owned by the claimant and the latter for injuries suffered in an accident. Both the claim petitions were dismissed. The subject matter of appeal in FAQ No. 399 of 1988 is out of a claim lodged at the instance of M/s Haryana Glue Works represented through the Managing Partner Narain Singh. The contention was that the accident had taken place by the negligent driving of the driver of the truck. The petition was dismissed without going into the merits on the ground that claimant had not been shown to have been registered under the Partnership Act and Section 69 of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 constitutes a bar on enforcement of claim. Section 69 of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932 reads as follows:

(2.) A statutory bar is applicable only in a suit to enforce a right claiming from a contract or conferred as a right under the Partnership Act itself. The right that accrues to a firm not under the contract, but as a consequence of a tort, such as by the result of negligent driving of another person then Section 69 of the Act itself will not be attracted. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and it must be so construed that any narrow interpretation must be averted unless there is a specific bar constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act itself. I would understand the claimant could be any person who suffers a damage arising out of a use of a motor vehicle. If a firm had been a registered owner of the vehicle and the motor vehicle Act itself did not provide for restriction of who the owner could be then, I will not allow dismissal of the claim on the only ground that the owner had not been shown to be a registered firm. The owner is defined under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as follows:

(3.) It is an inclusive definition that a law requires that motor vehicle should stand registered in such a person's name. If the vehicle had stood in the name of the firm then enforcement of claim through such a owner for a damage caused by the accident cannot be denied. The dismissal of the claim petition on the ground that the firm had not been registered is, therefore, not correct in law and the reasoning of the Tribunal for such a dismissal is set aside.