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 is