The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strict implementation of mandatory provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, including the issuance of disability certificates and timely disposal of claim petitions.

A.S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL CONTROVERSY

1. By this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has raised several issues concerning the disposal of claim petitions under of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “M.V. Act”) by the Motor Accidents Tribunals in the State.

2. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. It is his case that he is practicing as an Advocate since 31st January 1986. It is pointed out in the petition that the members of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in the State established under the M.V. Act (for short “the Tribunal” or the Tribunals”) insist on personal appearance of the claimants at the time of filing of the claim petitions under Sections 140, 163-A and 166 of the M.V. Act. It is pointed out that the Tribunal at Pune insists upon the production of form Comp. AA to be furnished by the claimants/applicants before the notices are issued on the claim petitions. The attention of the Court is invited to Rule 254 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules. Attention is also invited to the provisions of Sub-Rule 8 of Rule 254. Attention of the Court is also invited to various difficulties faced in procuring medical certificates certifying the percentage of disability. The petitioner has contended that the learned Members of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are not abiding by several provisions of the M.V. Act as well as the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short 'Maharashtra Rules'). Amended prayer clause (a) made in this petition reads thus:

“(a) The Hon'ble High Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction, directing the Learned Members of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal:

(i) not to insist upon presence of Claimants for filing an Application as under Rule 254 (2);

(ii) Police Authority be directed to follow Rule 254(8) scrupulously about From Comp AA and the office of the Tribunal be directed to follow Rule 253 C;

(iii) not to insist upon filing of true copies of Form Comp AA as Rule 253(C) casts duty upon Tribunal to furnish ones;

(iv) not to insist upon Disability Certificate from first hospital only;

(v) to repeat directions of this High Court in respect of Rule 255 (3) and 260 (3);

(vi) to pass order u/s 140 within 45 days

(vii) Not to make such administrative Rules which defeat are contra to spirit and letter of Section 144 of M.V. Act.”

3. Shri Ramesh Shinde the Deputy Secretary of Government of Maharashtra has filed a reply dated 27th January 2005 on behalf of the State Government. It is contended that the presence of the claimant/applicant is not mandatory at the time of filing of the claim petitions. There is another affidavit filed by the same Officer on 8th February 2005. It is contended that the directions have been issued by a letter dated 14th August 1996 to the Director General of Police and also to the Police Commissioners as well as the District Police Superintendents in the State to ensure that form Comp. AA is provided.

4. There is an affidavit filed on 1st March 2005 by the then Registrar (Legal) of this Court. It is contended therein that an Advocate cannot appear in a claim petition as a matter of right. It is contended that the Members of the Tribunal at Pune have not insisted upon production of disability certificate. There is a rejoinder filed by the petitioner inviting attention of the Court to various instances of the cases for showing as to how the cases are being dealt with by the Members of the Tribunal.

SUBMISSIONS

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to various provisions of the M.V. Act as well as the Maharashtra Rules. He invited our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jai Prakash vs. National Insurance Company and Others, (2010) 2 SCC 607. He relied upon the directions issued under the said Judgment. He also relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in case the Amish Ravindra Kondra vs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai and Another, 2002 ACJ 1755.