1. Compensation award by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — High Court affirmation — Challenge via special leave petition. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 408
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, SURYA KANT, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY - Petitioner
VERSUS
M.D. DAVASIA @ JOSE & ANR. - Respondent
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) ……………...Diary No(s).28549/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and orders dated 24-07-2019 and 17.02.2020 in MACA No.1913/2012 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam)
Date : 11-02-2021
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr.Adv. Mr. Nagesh, Adv. Ms. Daisy Hannah, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr.Adv. Mr. Nagesh, Adv. Ms. Daisy Hannah, Adv. Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR
The Court is examining whether a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has the authority to award costs and whether it can resort to the procedure and rules of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for such awards.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Accident - Award - Seeking Compensation - Petitioner and carefully perusing the material placed on record see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court in MACA High Court upheld compensation granted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in favour of injured respondent – Held, Petitioner raised a legal issue by stating that Tribunal does not possess any authority to award any costs as incidental to its power over parties or subject matter of litigation, and Tribunal being constituted under a special enactment is to be governed solely by the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Learned counsel impugned order - Determination before us is whether in the matter of awarding costs, procedure and rules framed under the Constitution, CPC and the Rules made thereunder, for `Courts’, could be resorted to by Claims Tribunal which is apparently, not a `Court - only to limited extent of examining the legal issue raised by the learned counsel for petitioner – Court are inclined to entertain these special leave petitions - Post these special leave petitions after eight weeks on a non-miscellaneous day – Court make it clear that petitioner – Insurance Company will have to pay the compensation to the injured -respondent as awarded by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court without fail, if not already paid - Ordered Accordingly.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Authority of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to award costs — Applicability of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 versus Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 3 )
3. Legal issue regarding the Tribunal's power to award costs and the applicability of procedural rules for courts requires examination. (Para 4 )
4. Special leave petitions may be entertained for the limited purpose of adjudicating a specific legal question regarding a tribunal's procedural powers. (Para 4 )
5. Special leave petitions entertained for limited legal issue — amicus curiae appointed — direction to pay awarded compensation. (Para 4 , 5 , 8 )
6. Whether a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can resort to the Code of Civil Procedure for awarding costs?
The court has entertained the special leave petitions specifically to examine if the Tribunal, being constituted under a special enactment, is governed solely by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, or can use rules framed under the Constitution and CPC. (Para 3 , 4 )
ORDER :
1. The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perusing the material placed on record, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Kerala in MACA No. 1913 of 2012 whereby the High Court upheld the compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kottayam (for short, `the Tribunal’) in favour of the injured respondent.
3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a legal issue by stating that the Tribunal does not possess any authority to award any costs as incidental to its power over the parties or the subject matter of the litigation, and the Tribunal being constituted under a special enactment is to be governed solely by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned counsel also quoted paragraph 8 of the impugned order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the High Court of Kerala in MACA No. 1913 of 2012, which is reproduced below:
“The question that arises for determination before us is whether in the matter of awarding costs, the procedure and rules framed under the Constitution, CPC and the Rules made thereunder, for `Courts’, could be resorted to by the Claims Tribunal which is apparently, not a `Court’.”
4. In view of the aforesaid, only to the limited extent of examining the legal issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are inclined to entertain these special leave petitions.
5. For proper adjudication of the legal issue involved in these petitions, we appoint Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate, as an amicus curiae to assist the Court.
6. The Registry is directed to supply a copy of the petition to the learned amicus.
7. Post these special leave petitions after eight weeks on a non-miscellaneous day.
8. We make it clear that the petitioner – Insurance Company will have to pay the compensation to the injured -respondent as awarded by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court without fail, if not already paid.
