IMPORTANT POINTS
Incorporating Section 381 to the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The 'advocates fees' referred to in Rule 381 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, pertains to advocates fee that can be claimed as costs from the adversary by the litigant in whose favour the litigation goes. Rule 381(1) refers to the appearance of legal practitioner and Rule 381(2) refers to the scale of fees contemplated in the Rules regarding the Fees Payable to Advocates in respect of original suits to be made applicable (emphasis supplied) to the claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The word 'Rules' referred to above undoubtedly intends application of the Rules pertaining to the Payment of Advocates' Fees, as also to the Civil Rules of Practice, as applicable to litigation before the civil courts. It is true that Advocates' Fees Rules is framed by the High Court regarding fees payable to advocates in exercise of powers under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the High Courts and courts subordinate to High Courts. There is no dispute that a Claims Tribunal is not a 'Court subordinate to the High Court'. Yet, the purpose in bringing about Rule 381(2) into the statute book is definitely with the intention to make it clear that advocates' fees payable as costs in respect of motor accidents claims must be as in the case of original suits. Meaning thereby, that proportionate costs in the form of advocates fees can as well be claimed in motor accidents petitions as in original suits stipulated in the Advocates' Fees Rules, 1969.

ASHOK MENON, J.

1. A Division Bench of this Court vide the order of reference dated 27.6.2016 raised the following questions in order to remove the vagueness in the matter of awarding costs by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (MACT), especially with regard to the question of granting proportionate costs, including Advocates' fee. The following are the four questions referred to us:

“1. Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals must follow the mandate of Rules 195 and 196 of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice, 1971?

2. Whether the scales of fees prescribed under 'Rules Regarding Fees Payable to Advocates' apply to Advocates in Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals?

3. Whether Rules 6 and 16 of the Advocates' Fee Rules, 1969 are applicable to claim petitions in the light of Rule 381(2) of the Motor Vehicles Rules?

4. Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals are empowered to award proportionate costs?”

2. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (MACT) generally deal in matters arising from law of torts and also the provisions of Fatal Accidents Act. In the absence of constitution of Claims Tribunal, compensation has to be sought from the appropriate Civil Court and the procedure to be followed by such Courts and appellate Courts shall be regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and many Rules applicable to such Courts.

3. Considering the powers of an Industrial Tribunal, the Honourable Supreme Court in Bharat Bank Ltd. v. Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd. [AIR 1950 SC 188] held as thus:

"While the powers of the Industrial Tribunal in some respects are different from those of an ordinary Civil Court and it has jurisdiction and powers to give reliefs which a Civil Court administrating the law of the land (for instance ordering the reinstatement of a workman) does not possess in the discharge of its duties it is essentially working as a juridical body. Having considered all the provisions of the Act, it seems to be clear that the Tribunal is discharging functions very near those of a Court, although it is not a court in the technical sense of the word”.

4. In Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala [AIR 1961 SC 1669], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as thus :

"All tribunals are not Courts, though all Courts are tribunals. The word 'Courts' is used to designate those tribunals which are set up in an organised State for the administration of justice. By administration of justice is meant the exercise of juridical power of the State to maintain and uphold rights and to punish wrongs. Whenever there is an infringement of a right or an injury, the Courts are there to restore the Vinculam juris, which is disturbed.

xxx xxx xxx

With the growth of civilization and the problems of modern life, a large number of administrative tribunals have come into existence. These tribunals have the authority of law to pronounce upon valuable rights; the act in a judicial manner and even on evidence of both, but they are not part of the ordinary Courts, of Civil judicature. They share the exercise of the judicial power of the State, but they are brought into existence to implement some administrative policy or to determine controversies arising out of some administrative law. They are very similar to Courts, but are not Courts.

By 'Courts' is meant Courts of Civil judicature and by 'tribunals', those bodies of men who are appointed to decide controversies arising under certain special laws.

xxx xxx xxx

Their procedures may differ, but the functions are not essentially different. What distinguishes them has never been successfully established. Lord Stamp said that the real distinction is that courts have 'an air of detachment'.

xxx xxx xxx

The word 'tribunal' is the word of wide import, and the words 'Court' and 'tribunal' embrace within them the exercise of judicial power in all its forms."

5. In Associated Cements Ltd. v. P.N.Sharma [AIR 1965 SC 1595], the Apex Court held as thus:

"It would be noticed that Article 136(1) refers to tribunal as disting