Hon’ble Dilip B. Bhosale, C.J.—A Division Bench of this Court, having noticed the divergent views expressed by different Division Benches, vide order dated 2 August 2016, formulated the following question for reference to a larger Bench:

“Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted in U.P. under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can permit, while hearing a claim petition, to file affidavits of the witnesses and treat them as Examination-in-Chief and may further permit the parties to cross-examine witnesses on the basis of such affidavits ?”

2. While dealing with the question whether the examination-in-chief of a witness can be filed on affidavit, the Division Benches in Kripal Singh v. Mst. Kalia, 1982 ACJ 458; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Richa Singh Katiyar and others, 2012 ACJ 1626; and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Ratan and others, 2013 (3) ALJ 600, expressed divergent views.

3. The factual matrix, sans unnecessary details for addressing the question, is that the respondents had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Lucknow, with the assertion that on 23.9.2008, an accident occurred, in which one Hariram sustained serious injuries and while he was being taken to hospital, succumbed to injuries. Accordingly, a claim petition was filed by his dependents. The claim petition was allowed with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay compensation which was quantified at Rs. 16,66,716/- with six percent simple interest. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company filed the instant appeal. Claimants also filed an appeal (F.A.F.O. No. 536 of 2011) for enhancement of compensation. When these appeals were being heard by the Division Bench, at the very outset, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the award impugned in the appeal, deserves to be set aside, on the ground that the parties were allowed to adduce their examination-in-chief by way of affidavit, which procedure was impermissible in law and on this count alone, the appeal deserves to be allowed. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the Insurance Company placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Kripal Singh. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in Richa Singh and Ram Ratan, to contend that it was open to the Tribunal to take affidavits of the witnesses on record in lieu of examination-in-chief. He submitted that such an objection was not raised before the Tribunal and, as a matter of fact, learned Advocate for the Insurance Company cross-examined the witnesses without demur. It is against this backdrop the Division Bench, vide order dated 2.8.2016, made reference to larger Bench, without expressing its opinion on the question.

4. We would like to have a close look at the judgments of the Division Benches referred to in the reference order. In Kripal Singh (supra), the Division Bench, while dealing with the question, observed thus:

“3. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the Tribunal had no authority in law to record evidence by means of affidavits and, the award given by the Tribunal is illegal. We find merit in the contention. Section 110-A of the Act confers power on the State Government to ‘constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals’ for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to, persons arising out of motor vehicles or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. Section 110-C of the Act lays down that the Tribunal may, in holding inquiry, follow such summary procedure, subject to rule that may be made in this behalf, as it thinks fit. Sub-section (2) lays down that the Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of the Civil Court, for the purpose of taking evidence and enforcing the attendance of the witnesses, and for discovery and production of documents and material objects