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

2003 Supreme(All) 373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUNIL AMBWANI
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD - Appellant
Versus
ADDL. DISTRICT, SESSIONS JUDGE, MUZAFFARNAGAR - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 1068 Of 2003
Decided On : 02/21/2003

Advocates Appeared:
SAURABH SRIVASTAVA

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has inherent powers to restore claim petitions dismissed for default, and the changes in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the corresponding rules have significant implications for the proceedings before the Tribunal.

Headnote:

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 140, Section 163, Section 163-A, Section 166, Section 168, Rule 221 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 - The court discussed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the corresponding rules, emphasizing the changes in the law, no fault liability, hit and run cases, compensation, and the powers of the Claims Tribunal. The court also highlighted the application of the Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal and the power of the Tribunal to restore claim petitions.

Fact of the Case:

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowed the application for recalling the order and restoring the claim petition, which was dismissed in default. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable to the proceedings for restoration of application dismissed in default.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Tribunal has the power to restore a claim petition dismissed for default, even if specific provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure were not made applicable. The court emphasized the changes in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules regulating the procedures before the Claims Tribunal.

Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, the power of the Tribunal to restore claim petitions, and the changes in the law governing motor accident claims.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tribunal has inherent powers to restore claim petitions dismissed for default, even if specific provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure were not made applicable. The court also emphasized the changes in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules regulating the procedures before the Claims Tribunal.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's order to restore the claim petition.

SUNIL AMBWANI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD counsel for petitioner.

( 2 ) THE Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 9th Additional District Judge, Muzaffer Nagar has by its order dated 28-10-2002, allowed application filed by Claimant respondent No. 2 Tej Pal Singh under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC for recalling order dated 19-12-2000 in Misc. Case No. 12 of 1998 for restoration of claim petition, which was dismissed in default on 19-12-1997, and has restored Misc. Case No. 12 of 1998 to its original number. The said order dated 28-10-2002, is under challenge in this writ petition.

( 3 ) SRI Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Nanhi Bai v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Banda, 1996 Acc CJ 1153 : (1996 AIHC 3361) holding that all the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure have not been made applicable before the Tribunal and that only the provisions, specified under Rule 21 of U. P. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1967, are applicable. Neither Order 9, Rule 9 nor Section 151 CPC has been made applicable to the proceedings for restoration of application dismissed in default. According to the Division Bench, the provisions appear to have been deliberately excluded from application and that it is a case of cosus omissus.

( 4 ) THE aforesaid decision was rendered in respect of claim filed under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and in interpretation of Rule 21 of U. P. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1967 made under the Act, which was amended in 1988 and a new Act, namely, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) was enacted making substantial and comprehensive changes with regard to the accident claims. Whereas Section 140 provides for no fault liability, S. 163 provided for a Scheme for payment of compensation in case of; hit and run motor accidents. Section 163-A makes special provision for payment of compensation on structured formula basis and that Section 168 provided for award of Claims Tribunal. The limitation of six months provided in sub-section (3) of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the power of Tribunal to condone the delay up to the expiry of twelve months was deleted by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994. A new set of rules were framed in the name of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 regulating procedures to the Claims Tribunal. Rule 221 is pari materia to Rule 21 of 1967 and provides as follows :-"221. Code of Civil Procedure to apply in certain cases.- The following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall so far as may be, apply toto proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, namely, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30 of Order V, Order IX, Rules 3 to 10 of Order XIII; Rule 2 to 21 of Order XVI; Order XVII; and Rules 1 to 3 of Order XXIII. "

( 5 ) THE rules are framed for carrying out the object and purpose of the Act. Since the Act has been amended by taking away limitation for filing claims, a claim petition which is not rejected at the first hearing cannot be dismissed for default.


( 6 ) SECTION 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that on receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 166, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving notice of the application to the insure and after giving the parties (including the insurer) an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim or, as the case may be, each of the claims and, subject to the provisions of Section 162 may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be Section 158 (6) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that as soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any per









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