SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(Mad) 367

Madras High Court
VEERASWAMI
M.Krishnan - Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Jethalal Sha - Respondent
Decided On : 10/25/1968

Advocates:
N. R. Raghavachari, for Petitioner, R. Shanmugham, for Respondent.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has the power to appoint a Commission for recording evidence of a witness in Bombay under Sec. 110-C (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the exercise of this power should be in accordance with the principles settled by courts in the light of the related provisions in the Civil Procedure Code.

Headnote:

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Power to Appoint Commission for Recording Evidence - The Tribunal has the power to appoint a Commission for recording evidence of a witness in Bombay under Sec. 110-C (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the power should be exercised in accordance with the principles settled by courts in the light of the related provisions in the Civil Procedure Code.

Fact of the Case:

The only point in this petition is whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal possesses the power to appoint a Commission for recording evidence of a witness in Bombay. The Tribunal held that it had the power in view of Sec. 110-C (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Finding of the Court:

The Tribunal was right in holding that it had the power to appoint a Commission for recording evidence of a witness in Bombay under Sec. 110-C (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal's power should be exercised in accordance with the principles settled by courts in the light of the related provisions in the Civil Procedure Code.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal possesses the power to appoint a Commission for recording evidence of a witness in Bombay.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal has the power to appoint a Commission for recording evidence of a witness in Bombay under Sec. 110-C (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the power should be exercised in accordance with the principles settled by courts in the light of the related provisions in the Civil Procedure Code.

Final Decision: The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, but with no costs.

Judgement

ORDER:- The only point in this petition is whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal possesses the power to appoint a Commission for recording evidence of a witness in Bombay. The Tribunal held that it had the power in view of Sec. 110-C (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In my view, the Tribunal was right. No doubt, Rule 18 of the Madras Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1961 does not mention Order XXVI of the Civil Procedure Code. Even so, sub-section (2) of Sec. 110-C is sufficiently wide to include the power. It speaks of the power of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses. The substance of this power is that, for the purpose of disposing of a claim before it, the Tribunal will have all the powers related to taking of evidence on oath and of enforcing attendance of witnesses, including the power to have evidence recorded on commission.

2. But the power so entrusted to the Tribunal should be exercised in accordance with the principles settled by courts in the light of the related provisions in the Civil Procedure Code. It is only in very extraordinary circumstances that a party to a litigation will be allowed to be examined on commission, as for instance, sickness disabling the movement of the party from attending Court or Tribunal to give evidence. Mr. Raghavachariar says the Tribunal has not applied its mind to this aspect in including within the scope of the commission examination of the claimant at Bombay. While the view of the Tribunal that it has power to appoint a Commission to record evidence is confirmed, it is directed to consider whether, in the light of what has been stated supra, the Tribunal would still think that the claimant can be examined on commission. Subject to this observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, but with no costs.

Petition dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top