Back
1997 Supreme(P&H) 1668
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Seno - Respondents
Civil revision No. 2179 of 1997.
Decided On : 28 November, 1997
For the Petitioner:V.K. Kapoor, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Harbhajan Singh, Advocate.
The provisions of Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - APPLICABILITY OF ORDER 26 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TO THE ENTERTAINMENT AND DECISION OF THE CLAIM PETITION BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
In a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the petitioner claimed compensation for the death of her husband in a motor vehicle accident. The Insurance Company, one of the respondents, contested the claim and sought to lead additional evidence to prove that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving license. The Tribunal allowed the application for additional evidence but declined the application for examination of the witness on open commission, holding that the provisions of Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable to the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal has wide powers to evolve its own procedure, which must be in consonance with the rules and principles of natural justice. The Tribunal can summon and examine witnesses, and if necessary, issue a commission for the examination of witnesses who are not residing within the local limits of the Court's ordinary original jurisdiction or live beyond 500 km from the Court house.
Issues: Whether the provisions of Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the provisions of Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which states that the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court also relied on the provisions of Rule 20 of the Punjab Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1964, which makes certain provisions of the First Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal dismissing the application of the Insurance Company under Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court directed the Insurance Company to summon the witness before the Tribunal by offering air fare to the witness for his attendance and examination before the Tribunal in accordance with the provisions of Rule 19 of Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Swatanter Kumar, J. - Scope and the limitations of applicability of procedural law (Order 26 of Code of Civil Procedure) to the entertainment and decision of the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, is the basic question that falls for determination in this case. In order to have synoptic analysis to this question, it may be appropriate to refer to the basic provisions which are applicable in such situation. To provide an apt approach in this regard reference to the necessary facts giving rise to the present petition becomes necessary.
2. Smt. Seno and another filed a petition Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the Act. It is the case of petitioner Smt. Seno that Gurdev Singh, her husband, died on 7.12.1992 in motor vehicular accident involving respondent No. 1. The vehicle was insured to respondent No. 2 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. As per allegations, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and thus, the petitioners prayed for payment of compensation claimed in the petition.
3. The respondents contested this case and one of the pleas raised was that respondent No. 1, driver of the vehicle, did not have proper and valid licence. Evidence led by the parties was recorded. When the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence of the claimants, the Insurance Company moved two applications; one for permission to lead additional evidence while the other for examination of the witness on open commission. The application for permission to lead additional evidence was allowed while the other application for examination of the witness on open commission was declined vide order dated 28.4.1997. It is this order of the learned Tribunal dated 28.4.1997 which has been impugned in this revision petition.
4. The only ground on which the application for examination of the witness on open commission was declined by the learned Tribunal is that the provisions of Order 26 of the Code of the Civil Procedure are not applicable to the tribunal. It is this view of the Tribunal against which the petitioner is aggrieved, though the other application in regard to additional evidence based on the same has been allowed.
5. It needs to be noticed at this stage that the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 before the learned Tribunal while closing the evidence on 4.3.1997 has tendered in evidence copy of the driving license and the case was consequently fixed for rebuttal evidence of the petitioners. The Insurance Company filed an application for additional evidence to prove their plea that no valid and proper driving license was issued by the District Transport Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib and also intended to examine the Licensing Authority, Hyderabad on commission as the driving license in question was initially issued by the Licensing Authority, Hyderabad, though it was renewed by the District Transport Authority, Fatehgarh Sahib.
6. In holding an enquiry under Section 168 of the Act on an application filed under Section 166 of the Act the Tribunal is free to adopt such course and procedure as it thinks fit. Such procedure, of course, has to be subject to the rules, if any, framed by the State in this behalf. Claim Tribunal shall be deemed to be Civil Court for all purposes as per Section 169 of the Act. Section 169 of the Act is relevant provision which describes the powers and procedure of the claim Tribunal and is reproduced as under :
"169. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals - (1) In holding any inquiry under Section 168, the Claim 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
