The Tribunal has an obligation to ensure that notices are served in accordance with the Assam Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1960 and the Civil Procedure Code, and cannot summarily dismiss a claim petition without following the proper procedure.

LAHIRI, J. :- By short-circuiting the process of trial more often than not the Tribunals cause great harm to the parties. It has become a common practice to nip in the bud the proceedings arising out of motor accident compensation cases before the Tribunal by adopting shortcut methods of dismissal of the actions without taking care to dispense the deliberate and benignant justice to the victims of motor accidents.

2. The Appellant-Claimant filed his claim petition before the learned Tribunal, took all necessary steps to serve notices on the Opposite Parties, the owner-driver of the truck as well as the insurer M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Nowgong, Assam. He paid the postal charges for summoning the Opposite Parties. The processes were sent by registered post to the opposite parties. On 4-4-1981 Opposite Party No. 2 the Insurance Company appeared and prayed for time to file written statement. However, the service report on opposite party No. 1 was that the addressee was "not known" to the postal peon. Learned Tribunal posted the case on 3-8-1981 and passed the following order :

"Fixing 3-6-1981 let opposite party Na. 1 be called and on that date the Insurance Company and Opposite Party No. 1 shall file written statement".

(Emphasis added)

It shows that learned Tribunal took upon itself the obligation to serve notice which is in conformity with the provisions of R.6 of the Assam Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1960, for short, "the Rules". On 3-6-1981, opposite party No. 2 filed written statement. Learned Tribunal directed the petitioner to take steps within 10 days for serving notice on opposite party No. 1 and fixed 6-7-1981. Another connected matter was tagged with the case which was to come up on that date. On 6-7-1981 which was fixed for appearance of opposite party No. 1 and not for hearing, the claimant was absent and no steps had been taken by him to summon Opposite Party No. 1. So, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim case. One thing for sure is that in the instant case Opposite Party No. 2 appeared and asserted that they were liable to pay compensation only to the extent prescribed under S.96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1940. It contested the claim on various grounds. The claim case was dismissed, therefore, it was a case of "no award", that is, an award granting no compensation. Against this award the claimant has preferred this appeal.

3. The provisions of the Assam Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules empowers summary dismissal of an application under R.5 if there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding. It is not a dismissal of that kind. In so far as the service of notice is concerned R.6 takes charge, which reads as follows:-

"6. Notice to parties involved. If the application is not dismissed under R.5, the Claims Tribunal shall send to the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident and its insurer a copy of the application together with a notice of the date on which it will bear the application and may call upon the parties to produce on that date any evidence which they may wish to tender." (Emphasis supplied)

In view of the nature of the claim proceedings the obligation has been cast on the Tribunal to see that the notices are served. In the Rules we do not find any provision for payment of any court-fee for issuance of any notice to the Opposite Party. It is a marked departure from the Code of Civil Procedure. We are of the opinion that in view of the nature and quality of the proceedings the legislature, in the fitness of things, thought it fit that a claimant, a victim of accident should not pay any court-fee not should he be burdened with any liability except furnishing the names and addresses of the Opposite Parties for serving the processes. In so far as summoning of witnesses is concerned we find in R.8 of "the Rules" that it can be served only "on payment of the expenses involved", R.9 restricts appearance of legal practitioners in such proceedings. Under these circum