ORDER

The present Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the Judgement/Award dated 10.02.2014, passed by Ld. Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Adhoc-III, Gaya in MAC Case No. 78 of 2001 (DJ) / 56 of 2013. The Appellant has annexed a certified copy of the impugned Judgement/Award but not deposited statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/-.

2. The office has pointed out two defects - first being that the certified copy of the Award has not been filed. The second defect being that statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- has not been deposited.

3. Ld. counsel for the Appellant submits that he has already filed certified copy of the Judgment/Award and hence the defect as pointed out by the office in regard to filing a copy of Award is not sustainable, hence it may be waived off.

4. In this context, he refers to the ruling of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in M/s United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Most. Mangli Devi & Ors. as reported in 2017 (2) PLJR 9 wherein Hon'ble Division Bench has clearly held that “...... the expression 'judgment' and 'award' are inter changeable and that the Tribunal shall announce award on completion of inquiry, which shall be executable and appealable.”

5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant is also joined by other members of the bars to point out that despite the ruling of Hon’ble Division Bench in Most. Mangli Devi Case (supra), the office is frequently pointing out such defect in complete violation of the said ruling, which is still holding the field.

6. Hence, they submit that Registrar General may be directed to ensure that the aforesaid defect is not pointed out by the office if the Appellant has filed certified copy of the Judgement/Award passed in the Claim Petition by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on completion of inquiry.

7. I perused the case record and considered the submission advanced by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and the members of the bar. I find that in Most. Mangli Devil Case (supra), Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, after considering all relevant statutory provisions and case-laws has clearly held that judgment, pronounced by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on completion of inquiry, is interchangeable with Award and it is executable and appealable and as such there is no need to draw separate Award. The judgment pronounced after inquiry is itself Award. Hence, if certified copy of Judgment/Award pronounced on completion of inquiry is filed by the Appellant, office cannot raise objection or point out defect that Award is not filed.

8. Hence, the defect as pointed out by the office in regard to filing of Award is not sustainable in the eye of law, hence is accordingly waived off. The office is directed not to point out such defect in future if certified copy of Judgment/Award pronounced on completion of inquiry by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in claim cases is filed along with the Memorandum of Appeal.

9. As far as defect no. 2 is concerned, the appellant is directed to deposit the statutory amount within four weeks.

10. It is also relevant to note that even in case of regular Civil Appeal, the memorandum of appeal is no longer required be the accompanied by a copy of decree, after amendment in Rule 1 of Order XLl of CPC, in the year 1999, whereby the word “decree” has been substituted by the word “judgement” in Rule 1 of Order XLl of CPC.

11. In reference to the Award/Judgement passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the judgements passed by Civil Courts in suits or appeals, the members of the Bar point out that in a number of cases, the Presiding Officers of the Tribunals or the Civil Courts omit to mention the names and details of all the parties to the proceeding, in the Judgement/Award. Such omission is not only serious irregularity but even causing inconvenience and delay in disposal of the Appeal. For want of description of all the parties with details, office is not in position to report whether Appellant has impleaded all necessary or relevant parties or not and whe