H.S.BHALLA, J. - (1.) THE lights of the house of Sumer Singh deceased were switched off on 11.8.1990 when he met with an accident near village Singh, Tehsil Hodal, District Faridabad at the hands of Rajinder Singh, who was driving a vehicle known as "Jugar". The legal heirs of the deceased filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in which they have prayed for compensation, but they could not succeed and the petition was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its award dated 5.3.1991 by recording a finding that such type of vehicle does not fall within the definition of Motor Vehicle as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the petition is neither maintainable nor the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to try such a petition. The legal heirs had no other option but to knock the door of this Court against the award mentioned above.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. Before I proceed further, I would like to observe that it is an admitted case that the vehicle known as "Jugar" is not registered with the Registering Authorities, but at the same time, when this vehicle runs on the road, the safety of a common man is endangered by plying the Jugar and a number of accidents have been caused by such 'Jugars'. Since Jugars are not registered with the registering authority, the victims have not been able to claim compensation on account of non-existence of ownership of such vehicles in the record of the transport department and in the absence of the aforesaid vehicle being insured. The Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, if otherwise claim is found genuine. Secondly, it is a self contained Act which prescribes mode of filing the application, procedure to be followed and award to be made. The Parliament, in its wisdom, realised the grave injustice and injury being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims who suffer bodily injuries/die in the accidents.
(3.) EVEN if 'Jugar' is not registered, but this vehicle is being used on the road and no licence for killing a common man can be provided to the persons who are owners of the Jugars or who are running this vehicle on the road under their control. Even they are not registered with the registering authority, the right of a common man cannot be thrown to winds since the law in a free country, like India, valueable lives and limbs as well as property of a citizen in its constitution scale. It is true that the claimants should not be permitted to make fortune out of misfortune that is befallen upon them, but at the same time if he suffers injuries at the hands of such vehicles, which are not registered with the registering authority, that does not mean that they have no remedies under the law. At this stage, I would like to examine the definition of a Motor Vehicle, as provided in sub-clause (28) of Section 2 of the Act, which runs as under :- "2(28) "motor vehicle or "vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted there to from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less that four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding (twenty five) cubic centimeters". The photographs of Jugar available on the record further spell out that it has four wheels along with an engine fitted with a body like a trolley of the tractor, meaning thereby that it is a mechanically propelled vehicle for use upon the roads. The learned Tribunal has treated issue Nos. 3 and 4 preliminary and has decided the same collectively being interconnected. The approach of the learned Tribunal is based on hypothesis and on technicalities. He has dismissed the petition by observing that Jugar is not registered under the Act and the owner means the registered owner, that is in whose name the motor vehicle is registered and since Balbir Singh respondent No. 2 is not a registered owner of the vehicle, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. The definition of a motor vehicle further spells out that it must have four wheels and should be fitted with engine and both these facts are proved. Since Jugar has got four wheels and also is fitted with an engine and then again the engine should be capacity of 35 cubic centimeters, to my mind, keeping in view the beneficial legislation and the change of law with the passage of time for the victims, the case of the claimants, who have lost their bread earner in an accident, which took place at hands of respondent No 2 while driving the vehicle, cannot be thrown out merely on technicalities particularly when the claimants are unable to find out the capacity of the engine fitted with the four wheels etc. This is not the spirit of the beneficial legislation. Moreover, considering the peculiar circumstances of the case in hand particularly with regard to the nature of the vehicle in question, to my mind, this Court is required to pass an order which it considered expedient in the interest of justice and also in the interest of the victim. The beneficial legislation further spells out that the Court is at liberty to follow any procedure that it may choose to evolve for itself so long as the order and the procedure is consistent with the rules of natural justice and does not contravene the positive provisions of the law. As discussed above, this vehicle 'Jugar' has not been defined anywhere and for the purpose of promoting the ends of justice, it cannot be permitted to go scot free particularly when a valuable life has been cut short by the accident on the road at the hands of the driver, who was driving this vehicle. In such like circumstances, for promoting the ends of justice in favour of the victim, the matter certainly requires classification with regard to the nature of the vehicle involved in the present accident. The vehicle 'Jugar' is bound to cover under the definition reproduced above and there is no prohibition in resorting to the principles of natural justice and the technicalities are required to be ignored or in other words, the technicalities are not to be taken note of by the Tribunal, and it is only the spirit that has to be applied with the object of securing the ends of justice. The paramount consideration in such type of cases should be the requirement of interest of justice. It is a vehicle of such a type and in real sense, it is certainly a vehicle, which is being run on the roads and merely on the basis of engine capacity, the rights of the parties cannot be thrown out. In fact, the vehicle must have four wheels and should be fitted with engine and both these important factors are part of Jugar. It is true that respondent No. 2 Balbir Singh is not a registered owner but as already observed above, he cannot be registered as owner since such type of vehicles are not liable to be registered with the registering authority, but at the same time, it is proved on record that this vehicle was being driven by Rajinder Singh and that means the vehicle was under control of respondent No. 2, the owner of Jugar through Rajinder Singh and he cannot escape his liability with this clever technicality as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent. This vehicle is an arrangement which is mechanically propelled to transport the goods and persons from one place to another and is certainly a vehicle, which is being used on the road. To my mind, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the definition of a motor vehicle or vehicle in a broader sense under clause (28) of Section 2 of the Act, Jugar is covered under the Act and in the final analysis, the finding of the learned Tribunal under issues No. 3 and 4 are hereby reversed by holding that the petition is maintainable and Jugar is covered under the Act. Since no finding had been recorded by the learned Tribunal under issues No. 1 and 2, this Court has no other option but to remand this case to the learned Tribunal. In view of the above discussion, appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated March 5, 1991 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The case is remanded to the District Judge, Faridabad, with a direction to finally dispose it of within a period of six moths from the date of appearance of the parties since it pertains to the year 1991. However, it is made clear that the learned District Judge, Faridabad would also be at liberty to entrust this case to the Court of competent jurisdiction, who will try the same and dispose it of within the stipulated period.;