1985 Supreme(MP) 587

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
T.N. SINGH, J.
Shahzad Khan - Applicant
Vs.
M.A.C.T. Shivpuri - Respondents
C.R. No. 221 of 1985 (G)
Decided On : 11-10-1985

Headnote:(1) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – S. 110 – A – application for compensation under – driver is necessary party.

       (2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – S. 110 – A – application under – no process fee is payable by claimant for service of opposite parties.

       (3) Motor Vehicles Rules, 1974 (M.P.) – R. 283 and 286 – Tribunal must discharge its duly to secure attendance of opposite parties – process fee not to be paid by claimants.

       (4) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – S. 110 – C (2) – Tribunal is vested with powers of civil Court for specific purpose – not expected to follow whole hog procedure prescribed in CPC.

       (5) Motor Vehicles Rules, 1974 (M.P.) – R. 283 – purports to effectuate statutory mandate of S. 110, 110 – A and 110 – C of the Act – enacted in pursuant to directive principles of Constitution.

        Short Note

       1. By a short direction this petition is disposed of and allowed.

       Held : The driver, in a claim for compensation, arising out of a motor accident, triable by the Tribunal, constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, is no doubt a necessary party. In the instant case, the driver was made a party but the proceedings progress in the Tribunal is stalled at the take off stage for a whole year, on a flimsy ground, indeed unfortunately and unhappily, because the driver could not be served personally and he could not also be reached through registered post. The Tribunal, albeit on the application of the claimant – petitioner himself, required the notice to show cause against the claim, to be published in a daily News Paper in circulation at Agra, the last known residence of the driver. While doing so, the direction, which was made for deposit of Rs. 1,000/ – for the purpose, has brought the claimant – petitioner to this Court. Indeed, there is a direction also to pay process – fees in addition to the said deposit. The first mentioned direction is obviously oppressive to say the least, if not punitive, defeating the ends of justice. Indeed, the legality of second is also doubtful and I propose to deal first with that.

       2. My attention is drawn by Shri Singhal to rule 283 of M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1974, to submit that the direction for payment of process – fees is not only unwarranted but is unauthorised as well. The contention pressed has appealed to me because there is no express requirement of payment of process – fees in rule 283 while such a requirement is to be found in rule 286 which concerns summoning of witnesses. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Rule – making authority deliberately made it the duty of the Tribunal, and not of the claimant, to cause notice of the application served on the opposite parties against whom relief is claimed in the claim petition. Indeed, Rule 283 purports to effectuate the statutory mandate of section 110, 110 – A and 110 – C which, evidently, is enacted pursuant to the Directive Principles of the Constitution. The hard pressed claimants, whether widows or orphans, struggling for their existence in the wake of the calamity befalling on the death of their mentor, have to be relieved of miseries of destitution and the institution which is accordingly ordained by the statute in the form of the Tribunal, must discharge its duty to secure the attendance of the statutory offenders to answer the claim. Reference in this connection may be made also to the provisions of sub – section (2) of section 110 – C which, while vesting the Tribunal with powers of civil Courts, for specific purposes, does not obligate it to follow whole hog the procedure prescribed in the Civil Procedure Code in trying a claim petition. A claimant is, therefore, not to be seen as a plaintiff in terms of Civil Procedure Code and he is not to be saddled, therefore, with the onerous and explicit obligations imposed on a plaintiff by the Code. He is to be aided by the Tribunal, adopting reasonable and benevolent procedure in trying his cause, as be conformable to the mandate of Art. 39 – A of the Constitution. I have no doubt, therefore, that the direction concerning payment of process – fees is without jurisdiction and the same is accordingly quashed.

       3. However, there is still surviving the further and important question about serving of notice on the driver, arrayed as an opposite party in the claim petition. Because he does not reside within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the provision of sub – Rule (1 – A) of Rule 20 of Order 5, C.P.C. may mutatis mutandis, apply in this case and indeed prayer was made by the claimant – petitioner for invoking the said provision. Shri Singhal submits that the claimant – petitioner is ready and willing to have the notice, contemplated under Rule 283, published in a daily News Paper at Agra, at his own cost and responsibility. That is very fair. I do not see any reason why this prayer should not be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned direction requiring the claimant petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,000/ – is quashed. The Tribunal is directed to allow the claimant – petitioner to arrange himself to have the notice published accordingly and for that purpose authorisation in that respect shall be made over to him under the seal and signature of the Court, enabling him to do the needful, fixing, however, an early date for the concerned opposite party to show cause against the claim notified. Revision allowed.