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

1975 Supreme(MP) 72

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Shiv Dayal, J.
DEEPCHAND NAYAK - Appellant
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BHOPAL - Respondents
Civil Revn. 575 Of 1975
Decided On : 07/28/1975

Advocates Appeared:
P.P.Naolekar, Rajendra Tiwari

Headnote:(1) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Ss. 110 (i) (ii) and 110-A(i) - notifications dated 29-12-1969 and 9-1-1974 issued by the Government constituting District Judges as Motor Accident claims Tribunals-claims Tribunals Seoni not affected by 1974 notification and had the jurisdiction to try claim cases.

       From the letter and spirit of the 1974 notification, there can be no manner of doubt that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Seoni, as constituted under the 1969 notification was competent to try the present claim. The eight Additional Tribunals, which were constituted by the 1974 notification, have only limited territorial jurisdiction. They were constituted exclusively for the area specified in the notification itself. [Para 8]

       (2) Interpretation of statute-interpretation of a notification.

       The notification is neither defective nor ambiguous. But even if it were, for a moment, the rules of interpretation fully clothe the Courts to construe the law in a manner which would not lead to absurdity. "Transfer" must necessarily be accompanied by the hand from which and the hand to which something is to be transferred, or the place from which and the place to which something is to he transferred; that is to say, "transfer" must carry with it "from" and "to". If either of them is wanting, there can be no transfer. It could never be the intention of any of the notifications that there would be transfer of claims in vacuo and that the claims would have to be consigned to the record room. It may be remembered that the Legislature, while enacting section 110-A of the Act, clearly intended that the claims arising out of motor accident, should be expeditiously tried and it was for that purpose that a nominal Court-fees was prescribed instead of that which would have otherwise been chargeable under the Court Fees Act and special Tribunals were constituted in place of Courts which would ordinarily tried these claims under the jaw of torts. [Para 15]

SHIV DAYAL, J.

( 1 ) BEFORE the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Seoni presided over by the district Judge, Seoni, the revision-petitioner made a claim for compensation, arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter called the Act ).

( 2 ) BY Notification No. 4484-239/ii-A (2) dated December 29, 1969, (hereinafter called the 1969 notification), issued by the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 110 of the Act, the district Judge, Seoni, was constituted the one Member Motor Accident Claims tribunal with his headquarters at Seoni, for the areas comprising Seoni and mandla revenue districts. This claims Tribunal was so constituted not only for the claims to be made thereafter, but the notification further directed that all claims for compensation "in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of Motor Vehicles or damages to any property of a third party so arising or both", pending before any Claims Tribunal constituted under Notification dated August 7, 1959, and April 16, 1969, would stand transferred to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction under the notification. Claims Tribunal Seoni, was one of the 35 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which were constituted for all the districts of Madhya Pradesh under this notification.

( 3 ) THE present claim was made after December 29, 1969, but before January 9, 1974. On the last mentioned date, this claim was pending before the learned district Judge Seoni, as Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Seoni.

( 4 ) ANOTHER notification No. 6/23/ 73/a-2-II was issued on January 9, 1974, (hereinafter called the 1974 Notification), This was in continuation of the notification dated December 29, 1969, and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 110 of the Act, By this notification, the state Government constituted eight ''additional Motor Accident Claims tribunals" (hereinafter called Additional Tribunals) with their respective headquarters at Durg (Rajnandgaon), Jabalpur, Indore, Gwalior, Indore, bhopal, Dewas and Indore. It may be noted just now that as many as three additional Tribunals were constituted for Indore. They were called "1st additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 2nd Additional Motor Claims Tribunal and the third Additional Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Indore," I will make a reference to this a little later. By this notification, it was directed that--"all Claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to, persons arising out of tile use of motor vehicles, pending before any of the Claims Tribunal, except Indore, constituted under the Notification dated December 29, 1969, immediately before the commencement of this notification, shall on such commencement stand transferred to the Additional Claims tribunals having jurisdiction under this notification. " (Underlined by me)By the following expression this jurisdiction, which was conferred on these newly constituted Additional Claims Tribunals, was restricted to the claims which were pending on the date of the 1974 notification, that is, January 9, 1974:-"however, such of the claims which are filed before the Motor accident Claims Tribunals constituted under Notification No. 4484289/ ii. A (2) dated the 29th December 1969, after the issue of this notification shall not be transferred and shall be tried and disposed of by them. " In other words, only those claims were to be transferred to the Additional Claims Tribunals, which were pending on. January, 9, 1974, but claims, which would be preferred after that date, would be tried by the Tribunals which were constituted under the abovesaid notification dated December 29, 1969.

( 5 ) BY his order dated February 13, 1975, the learned District Judge, Seoni, held that because of the 1974 notification, the present claim could no

















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