Back
2005 Supreme(J&K) 63
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
State Of J&K - Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Rafi Paswal & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 101/2004
Decided On : 22 March, 2005
Advocate For Appellant: Jawad Hussain Reshi
Advocate For Respondent: Mushtaq Ahmad Dar
The main legal point established is that orders refusing to set aside exparte orders are revisable, and interim awards are appealable under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 169, Section 140, Section 166, Section 168, Section 173 - The court discussed the powers of the Claims Tribunal, the appealability of orders, and the appealability of interim awards under the Motor Vehicles Act. It interpreted the provisions of the Act and Rules, and concluded that the orders refusing to set aside exparte orders are revisable, and interim awards are appealable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside an exparte interim award and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal partly allowed the application, setting aside the exparte proceedings but keeping the interim award intact. The petitioner filed a revision petition, challenging the order and the interim award as illegal and erroneous.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the appealability of orders and the interim award under the Motor Vehicles Act. It found that orders refusing to set aside exparte orders are revisable, and interim awards are appealable.
Issues: The issues involved the appealability of orders and interim awards under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that orders refusing to set aside exparte orders are revisable, and interim awards are appealable under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Final Decision: The court referred the matter to a larger bench and directed the Registry to place the file before the Lord Chief Justice for orders.
2. It appears that respondents 3 to 6 have filed a claim petition in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar on 1st September 2003. Along side the main petition, the petitioners have also filed application for grant of interim award in terms of Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act. The exparte proceedings were drawn against the respondents 1, 2, 3 and 5 vide order dated 15th October 2003. However, respondent No. 4, namely, Mohammad Rafiq Paswal has caused appearance. Accordingly, the interim award stands passed.
3. Mr. Reshi has filed an application on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 with the prayer that the exparte proceedings drawn against the said respondents and the interim award passed in exparte be set aside.
4. After hearing the claimants i.e., respondents 3 to 6 and learned counsel for the appellant i.e., respondents 1 to 3, the learned Presiding Officer partly allowed the application and partly dismissed the application. The exparte proceedings drawn in the main petition have been set aside but the exparte interim award dated 17th March, 2003 has been kept intact.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner ahs preferred the revision petition in hand, assailing the said order and the exparte interim award which shall be, hereinafter, referred to as Impugned order and impugned award.
6. It has been averred in this petition that impugned, award and, order are illegal, erroneous and perverse.
7. Mr. Reshi argued that the order of rejection of the application in terms of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is revisable, thus revision is competent. The Tribunal is amenable to revisional jurisdiction and High Court is competent to hear revision petitions. He further argued that there is no prima facie proof on the file suggesting the fact that the vehicle of the State was involved in the accident; case stands closed as untraced and the finding of Investigating Officer stands upheld by the learned Magistrate and prayed that impugned order as also the impugned award dated 17th March, 2004 be set aside.
8. Mr. Dar while rebutting the arguments argued that the Tribunal is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction, thus revision is incompetent. The rejection of application under Order 19 Rule 13 CPC is neither appealable nor revisable in terms of provisions of Motor vehicles Act read with Motor Vehicle Rules. All the provisions of Civil Procedure Code have not been made applicable.
9. Considered. The following questions are to be answered;-
1. Whether an order passed by the Tribunal, granting or refusing, an application moved in terms of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside exparte award/order, review or, any other miscellaneous application, is appealable or revisable?
2. Whether Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is amenable to civil jurisdiction?
3. Whether an appeal lies against the order of granting or refusing interim award in terms of Section 140 of the Act.
10. Dwelling on question No. 1.
Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles, referred hereinafter as Act, reads as under;
"169. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals. -- (1) In holding any inquiry under Section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.
(2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of
