The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability of the insurer is limited to Rs.5,000/- for a claimant who was a passenger in a bus accident. The judgment also clarified that the Civil Rules of Practice for suits are not applicable to claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act and that a successful party in a claim petition before the Tribunal is entitled to costs incurred, including advocate's fee and other expenses.

Balanarayana Marar, J.

The insurer is the appellant. Appeal is against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in M. AC. 142 of 1981. The accident happened on 26-9-1980. The first respondent was a passenger in bus KLD 7914 owned by 3rd respondent and driven by 2nd respondent. He sustained injuries when the bus met with the accident as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by second respondent. An amount of Rs.25,000/- was claimed as compensation from respondents 2 and 3 and the appellant, who is the insurer. The petition was resisted by the owner, driver and the insurer. Appellant, the insurer inter alia contended that their liability is limited as provided in the Motor Vehicles Act. They further contended that their liability has to be fixed at Rs.5,000/- since the claimant was a passenger. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation with interest at 12% per annum from date of petition with costs which include the advocate's fee as provided in the Civil Rules of Practice for suits. Appellant was directed to pay the amount. It was further directed that 95% of the amount awarded shall be deposited in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank in the name of the claimant for a period of seven years from the date of deposit with a further direction to pay monthly interest thereof to the claimant every month. Aggrieved by that decision the insurer has come up in appeal.

2. Two points arise for consideration.

i. Whether the insurer is liable to indemnify only an amount of Rs.5,000/- and

ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to get advocate's fee as provided in the Civil Rules of Practice for suits.

3. On the first point it is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant was only a passenger in the bus and as such the liability of the insurer is limited to Rs.5000/-. Another passenger who sustained injuries in the same accident has moved the Tribunal as per M.A.C. 80 of 1981. The award passed therein was challenged by the insurer before this court in M.F.A, 556 of 1984. This court in the judgment pronounced on 3-8-1989 held that the liability of the appellant has to be restricted to Rs.5000/-. That first respondent was a passenger in the bus is not disputed. The liability of the appellant has therefore to be restricted to Rs.5,000/-.

4. The Tribunal has awarded advocate's fee as provided in the Civil Rules of Practice for suits. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the claim petition cannot be equated to an original suit and the advocate's fee payable in an original suit cannot be claimed by a claimant in a petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also contended that the Claims Tribunal is not a court and the Civil Rules of Practice are not applicable to the Tribunal. This court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. PadminlAmma -1986 KLT 581 had occasion to consider this aspect. The Claims Tribunal awarded costs including advocate's fee as provided for suit. The award to the extent it awards advocate fee-as provided for suit was challenged in an original petition before this court. One of us (Paripoornan, J.) who heard the petition held that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is not a Court and it is not a court subordinate to the High Court either. It was also held that the rules regarding fees payable to advocates framed by the High Court relate to fees payable to legal practitioners in the High Court and in the Subordinate Courts only and so will not apply to Tribunals as such. It is observed that it is only by way of analogy and rule of guidance that the provisions of the said rules are perhaps referred to and relied on broadly for the purpose of awarding the advocate's fees by the Tribunals. Petitioner therein had no case that the rules regarding fees payable to advocates framed by the High Court are inapplicable. It was in these circumstances that this court held that the award of costs has not been shown to be totally unauthorised of unfair. The orig