1996 Supreme(MP) 876

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. C. PANDEY
RAM SHIROMANI MISHRA - Appellant
Versus
SHIV MOHAN SINGH - Respondents
C. R. 1847 Of 1995
Decided On : 10/03/1996

The Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to an application for setting aside an ex parte award under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - APPLICATION OF LIMITATION ACT - APPLICABILITY OF ORDER 43 OF C. P. C. - APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 123 OF LIMITATION ACT - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 12 AND SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT - SETTING ASIDE OF EX PARTE AWARD - PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant filed three applications supported by affidavits for setting aside three ex parte awards dated 4-7-1984, passed against him in favour of the non-applicants in Claims Tribunal Cases No. 126/89, 131/89 and 127/89 respectively. The applicant claimed that he was not served with the summons in above three cases and, therefore, he was unaware about pendency of any claim against him. He received notices for appearance before the Tribunal in respect of the ex parte awards which were sought to be executed by the claimants on 8-2-1995. The Claims Tribunal dismissed the three applications for setting aside the three ex parte awards without recording any evidence or making enquiry in each case as to whether the summons was served upon the applicant.

Finding of the Court:

1. The revision is maintainable as Order 43 of C. P. C. is not applicable to proceedings before Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal. Rule 240 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 expressly states that unless otherwise provided in the Act or in those Rules, no orders of the First Schedule of C. P. C. shall be applicable other than those mentioned in the list. The intention of the Rule Making Authority is explicit. It did not want to burden the procedure of Claims Tribunal with all the provisions of First Schedule of C. P. C. Therefore, only a chosen few orders have been mentioned in Rule 240 of the Rules. 2. Article 123 of Limitation Act does not apply to an application for setting aside an award given ex parte under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to an application for setting aside an ex parte award. This may appear to us an astonishing conclusion, but for the fact, the legislature or the Rule Making Authority under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has omitted to provide for any limitation for filing an application for setting aside an ex parte award. 3. Assuming that Article 123 of the Limitation Act applies, then the applicant is entitled to exclude the time requisite in obtaining the copy of the award. This is also clear from the definition of application in the Limitation Act. Section 12 (4) of Limitation Act cannot be confined to application for setting aside an award under the Arbitration Act at one for the reason the word 'award' has not been defined under the Limitation Act. There is no contrary indication in the context to hold that Section 12 (4) is confined to a particular kind of award. 4. The applicant has shown sufficient cause under Section 5 of Limitation Act and the trial Court should have condoned the delay, for the reason, he was advised to obtain certified copies of the awards in question and his counsel thought this time for obtaining certified copy is to be excluded.

Issues: 1. Whether revision is maintainable? 2. Whether Article 123 of Limitation Act applies to an application for setting aside an award given ex parte under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? 3. Whether the applicant is entitled to exclude the time requisite in obtaining the copy of the award? 4. Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause under Section 5 of Limitation Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Rule 240 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 expressly states that unless otherwise provided in the Act or in those Rules, no orders of the First Schedule of C. P. C. shall be applicable other than those mentioned in the list. The intention of the Rule Making Authority is explicit. It did not want to burden the procedure of Claims Tribunal with all the provisions of First Schedule of C. P. C. Therefore, only a chosen few orders have been mentioned in Rule 240 of the Rules. Once this aspect of the Rule 240 is borne in mind, it would be crystal clear that the Rule Making Authority omitted application of Order 43. Rule 1 of C. P. C. to the cases under Claims Tribunal. The omission deliberate or otherwise has to be respected. There is no other provision of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called 'the Act' for short) or the Rules which makes Order 43 of C. P. applicable. 2. The Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to an application for setting aside an ex parte award. This may appear to us an astonishing conclusion, but for the fact, the legislature or the Rule Making Authority under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has omitted to provide for any limitation for filing an application for setting aside an ex parte award. 3. Section 12 (4) of Limitation Act cannot be confined to application for setting aside an award under the Arbitration Act at one for the reason the word 'award' has not been defined under the Limitation Act. There is no contrary indication in the context to hold that Section 12 (4) is confined to a particular kind of award. 4. The applicant has shown sufficient cause under Section 5 of Limitation Act and the trial Court should have condoned the delay, for the reason, he was advised to obtain certified copies of the awards in question and his counsel thought this time for obtaining certified copy is to be excluded.

Final Decision: The impugned orders, dated 22-9-1995, in Civil Revisions Nos. 1847/ 96, 1848/96 and 1849/96 are set aside. The revisions in each case succeed. They are, therefore, allowed with costs.