( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of the common judgment delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Kutch at Bhuj in M. A. C. P. No. 276 of 1983 and M. A. C. P. No. 272 of 1983 whereby awards for Rs. 1 lac and Rs. 61 720 have been passed respectively in the two aforesaid applications. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as they arise out of the common judgment delivered by the learned Tribunal.

( 2 ) IN M. A. C. P. No. 276 of 1983 the amount claimed was Rs. 1 lac while in M. A. C. P. No. 272 of 1983 the amount claimed was Rs. 75 0 It may be mentioned here that two other applications were also filed arising out of the same incident in which the claim did not exceed Rs 25 0 These four applications were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. It may be mentioned here that the procedure laid down by Order XIX of the Civil Procedure Code was followed by the Tribunal in disposing of all these applications. The claim in the two petitions exceeded Rs. 25 0 and therefore the grievance made by the appellants is that the learned Tribunal committed an error in following the procedure of deciding the applications on affidavits.

( 3 ) RULE 300 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules 1959 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Rules for the sake of brevity says that after framing the issues the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to record evidence thereon which each party may desire to produce. Rollick 310 of the Rules lays down that in so far as these Rules make 3 provision or make insufficient provision the Claims Tribunal shall follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for trial of suits. The above two Rules have never been amended at any time. Rule 311 which is captioned as Savings which was lastly amended in the year 1980 reads as follows:"notwithstanding anything contained in these rules: (A) In case of claim not exceeding an amount of Rs. 10 0 the Claims Tribunal may at its discretion after bearing the arguments of the parties or of their legal practitioners if the parties are allowed to appear before it through a legal practitioner under Rule 308 and examining the documents and affidavits accompanying the application for compensation decide the claim by recording a concise judgment and (B) In case of claim exceeding an amount of Rs. 10 0 but not exceeding an amount of Rs. 25 0 the Claims Tribunal may follow at its discretion the provisions of Order 19 of the Civil Procedure Code". Rule 311 as amended in 1980 reads as reproduced above and it is an admitted fact that thereafter the said Rule has never been amended. In view of this it is crystal clear that when the claim exceeds Rs. 25 0 the Claims Tribunal Main or Auxiliary as the case may be has to follow the procedure laid down in the Civil Procedure Code for trial of suits. The Claims Tribunal has to record evidence which each party may desire to produce after the issues are framed when the claim exceeds Rs. 25 0 Such procedure has to be followed when the claim exceeds Rs. 25 0 and that procedure having not been followed in the trial of the present applications the awards passed by the Tribunal can be said to have been passed without following the procedure laid down in the Rules.

( 4 ) IT may be mentioned here that clause (b) of Rule 311 refers to Order 19 C P. C. Rule 1 of Order 19 C. P. C. gives power to the Court to decide any point to be proved by affidavit. This can be done only when the claim does not exceed Rs. 25 0

( 5 ) IT appears that the learned Tribunal has in view of certain Notifications issued by the Government of Gujarat in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) gathered an impression that when the claim does not exceed Rs. 1 lac the Tribunal can follow the procedure laid down in Order 19 C. P. C. It may be mentioned here that Sec. 110 of the Act confers powers upon the State Government to constitute a Clai