The provisions of Order 26, Rule 4 of the CPC do not apply to the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal because Rule 21 of the U. P. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1967 does not provide for their applicability.

( 1 ) WHETHER Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) with a view to decide an application under S. 166 of the Act has power to issue Commission to examine witnesses, as provided under O. 26, R. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code) or in other words whether the provisions of O. 26, R. 4 of the Code would apply to the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) is short question that falls for determination in the present revision.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix is that an application before the Tribunal was filed by the applicant at the stage of evidence, to examine Dr. K. P. Srivastava, Head of Orthopedics Department, and Dr. Rabi Semarwal, Senior Orthopedics Surgeon, S. N. Medical College, Agra by issuing a Commission under O. 26, R. 4 of the Code. That application has been rejected under the impugned order against which present revision has been filed. Even though the revision was dismissed on 29-4-91 but before the order could be signed, prayer was made on behalf of applicant that revision may be heard again consequently parties were heard at considerable length and as suggested by the learned counsel for the parties revision is being disposed of on merits. 2a. Under S. 166 of the Act application for the compensation arising out of an accident for the nature specified under subsec. (1) of S. 165 is to be made and under S. 168, Tribunal, after affording opportunity of being heard and after considering the claim shall pass an award specifying the person or persons to whom the compensation shall be paid and also specifying the amount which shall be paid by the Driver or owner of the vehicles involved in the accident or by all or any of them. S. 169 provides procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal. It provides that Tribunal may subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf (by the State Govt.) follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. Sub-Cl. (2) of S. 169 provides that 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 S. 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

( 3 ) A bare reading of all the aforesaid provisions would indicate that Claims Tribunal has powers subject to any Rules that may be made in this behalf and it has got the Powers as specified, for taking evidence on oath (O. 18 (Eighteen), C. P. C.), enforcing attendance of witnesses (O. 16, C. P. C.), Production of documents (O. 13, C. P. C.) U. P. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules 1967 (for short Rules) framed under S. 111a of the (1939) Act are still applicable. R. 21 is set out as follows : "21. 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 to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, namely, O. V. Rr. 9 to 13 and 15 to 33, O. IX, O. XIII, Rr. 3 to 10, O. XVI, Rr. 2 to 21, O. XVII, and O. XXIII, Rr. 1 to 3. " in view of aforesaid R. 21 of the U. P. Rules the provisions of O. 26 of the Code providing for Commissions to examine the witnesses are not applicable. The provisions of S. 169 of the Act as stated above provide that the enquiry shall be made by the Tribunal under S. 168 subject to the Rules that may be made in this behalf. R. 21 of the Rules made in this behalf does not provide the provisions of O. 26 to be applicable. No doubt Tribunal is not Civil Court rather it is persona designata. It may have certain powers of the Civil Court for the purposes of taking evidence on oath etc, but that itself would not constitute it to be a Civil Court. Only those provisions of the