Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
A.K. Goel, J.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Bashir Ahmad Wani - Respondent
Civil Revision No.76/1997 (With Civil Revision No. 43/1997)
Decided On : 19 March, 1998
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - MAINTAINABILITY OF REVISION PETITION - TRIBUNAL AS COURT SUBORDINATE TO HIGH COURT - JURISDICTION TO PASS ORDER UNDER NO FAULT LIABILITY - INTERPRETATION OF RULES AND PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Two revision petitions were filed challenging orders passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The issue was whether a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was maintainable against an order passed by the Tribunal. The claimants argued that the Tribunal was not a court subordinate to the High Court and therefore, the revision petitions were not maintainable. The insurance company and the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident argued that the Tribunal was subject to the appellate control of the High Court and had all the trappings of a civil court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Tribunal was a court subordinate to the High Court and was amenable to the provisions of Section 115 of the CPC as well as to its authority under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. The court relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts which held that the Tribunal was a court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of Section 104 of the Constitution and Section 24 of the CPC.
Issues: 1. Whether a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC was maintainable against an order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal? 2. Whether the Tribunal was a court subordinate to the High Court? 3. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to pass an order under no fault liability?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tribunal was a court subordinate to the High Court and was amenable to the provisions of Section 115 of the CPC as well as to its authority under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. The court relied on the following provisions and principles: * Section 115 of the CPC, which empowers the High Court to call for the record of any case decided by a subordinate court and to pass such order as it deems just and proper. * Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, which vests the High Court with the power of superintendence and control over all courts subordinate to it. * Rule 324 (1-a-ii) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991, which empowers the Tribunal to exercise all or any of the powers of a Civil Court as may be necessary for discharging its functions under the Act and the rules made thereunder. * Rule 325 (1-b) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991, which provides that the relevant provisions of the CPC shall apply to the proceedings before the Tribunal, insofar as the Act and the rules make no provision or make insufficient provision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition filed by the insurance company and set aside the order directing it to deposit the amount under no fault liability. The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.
1. Both these revision petitions are being dealt with by a common judgment since common question of law regarding maintainability of a revision under section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure against an order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal arises as well as identical questions of fact, are involved in both the cases. In order to properly appreciate the submissions, brief facts need to be noticed in both the cases.
Civil Revision No.76/97.
2. A claim petition was filed by respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as claimant) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ramran. Averments made in the claim petition by the claimant were that he was employed as a driver with respondent no.2 company (hereinafter referred to as employer). Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as mixer driver) was also employed as a driver by the said employer. Further case of the claimant that he was driving a DCM Toyota Bus No. JKO1-49 and mixer driver was driving Scania Concrete Mixer No.4342-002. Accident took place on 11.01.1995 which resulted in the claimant sustaining injuries. From the impugned order it appears that an application dated 16.10.1996 for review of the order impugned was filed by the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as Insurance Company). Since none had put in appearance on behalf of owner as well as mixer driver, therefore another application filed by the employer for impleading United India Insurance Company Limited as party was dismissed in default for appearance. Time was prayed for filing the objections. It appears that on 15.12.1995 interim award of Rs. 25,000/- under no fault liability was passed. For depositing this amount, time was granted till 13th March 1997 when it was ordered that the another application filed by the Insurance Company for impleading United India Insurance Company shall be considered after the amount had been deposited. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed by the Insurance Company.
Civil Revision No. 43/1997.
3. The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as owner) had initially filed the case as an appeal against the order dated 4.7.1996 passed by Motoi Accident Claims Tribunal Kathua, whereby interim award or Rs. 50,000/- was passed in favour of respondents 1 to 4 (hereinafter referred to as claimants). On the failure of the owner to deposit this amount within a period of one month, it was further ordered to pay interest (a 12% per annum on this amount. According to claimants, Iqbal Singh was going on a Motoi Cycle bearing registration number HR-93-1036 which was being driven by one Balwinder Singh. Bus No: PB-10K/9747 belonging to the owner was coming from Ludhiana and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn by its driver Hardeep Singh, respondent no. 5 (hereinafter referred to as driver). Accident was caused by the driver with the Motor Cycle which resulted in both, Balwinder Singh and Iqbal Singh dying on the spot. According to owner the legal representatives of deceased Balwinder Singh have preferred a claim petition which is pending adjudication with the Tribunal at Ludhiana, whereas claimants 1 to 4, who are legal representatives of late Shri Iqbal Singh, preferred a claim petition at Kathua in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended up-to-date. It is during the course of these proceedings that the impugned order has been passed, hence this revision.
4. When both the cases were taken up, a serious contention was raised by the learned counsel for the claimants in their respective cases that the revision petitions are not maintainable as Section 115 of the code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to the facts of the present case and Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is also in applicable. While further pressing the arguments, it was submitted on behalf of the claimants that Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act is not a court within the m
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
