The court clarified that the mandatory or directory nature of a provision should be determined based on the purpose of the legislation and the consequences of strict interpretation.

As per Hon'hle Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. : -

1. Being aggrieved with the order dated 31.3.200 I passed in M.A.C.CNo.62/1999 by the 11 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal U/S 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. Short questions raised for consideration are

(i) Whether the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 220 of the M.P. (C.G) Motor Vehicles Rules 1994 (herein after referred to as the Rules 1994) are mandatory or directory? and

(ii) Whether its non-compliance has an automatic consequence of leading to dismissal of the claim petition?

3. The brief facts are that the appellant/claimant, on account of his personal injuries sustained in the motor accident, filed a claim before the concerned Tribunal on 15.4.1998. The claim was filed in Form M.P.M.Y.R.-75 (Comp.A) prescribed under sub-rule (I) of Rule 220 of the M.P. (C.G.) Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994.

4. Learned counsel for the claimant was heard on the claim and it was directed to be registered on the same day i.e., 15.4.1998 and notices were directed to be issued to the opposite side for filing their written statements and the matter was fixed for framing of issues on 04.7.1998. On 04.7.1998, counsel or the respondents caused his appearance and sought time to file written statement. The time was allowed and further time for filing written statement was allowed on various subsequent dates and the written statement was filed on 02.9.1999. Thereafter, the matter was listed for framing of issues on 08.10.1999 and the issues were framed on the said date and it was fixed for evidence on 8.1.2000. On 8.1.2000, the evidence could not be taken, thereafter, the matter was adjourned to various subsequent dates and ultimately an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed which was allowed and notices were directed to be issued to the newly added respondent and again the matter was fixed for written statement of the said respondent on 31.3.2001. On 31.3.2001, all of a sudden, learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the claimant saying that since the provisions of Rule 220 (1)(3) of the aforesaid Rules of 1994 were not complied, therefore, the claim petition is dismissed. It is against this order; the appellant/claimant has filed this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the course adopted by the Tribunal for dismissal of the claim petition on account of non-compliance of provisions of Rule 220(3) of the Rules ofl994 is not in accordance with law. He submitted that when the claim petition was admitted for hearing, written statement were taken on record and issues were framed, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim petition on the above grounds. He further argued that the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 220 are not mandatory especially in view of the provisions of Sub-Rule (4), as there is no automatic consequence of its noncompliance; therefore, on this ground also the order passed by the Tribunal is totally unjustified.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State/respondents No.1 & 2 opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the Claims Tribunal. He argued that the legislature has deliberately used the word like "shall" in sub rule (3) of Rule 220 which makes the provision imperative and non-compliance of the same would lead to a definite consequence which has to be followed in each case.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case.

8. The rules of 1994 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by sections 28, 38, 65, 95, 96, 107, 111, 138, 159, 176,211 & 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Chapter IX in which rule 220 is there deals with the provisions of the Claims Tribunal. Rule 220 reads as under:

220. Application/or compensation arising out of an accident.

(1) An application for compensation aris