Courts and Tribunals must adhere to their statutory boundaries; the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot apply civil procedure provisions that conflict with existing rules under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

The present Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 09.05.2022 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in O.P.(MV) No.155 of 2022 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha allowing the application of the claimant by directing the petitioner owner of the offending vehicle to furnish security of Rs.9,91,000/- purported to be an order under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

2. In respect of an accident taken place on 16.10.2021 at 7.45 AM whereby the respondent/claimant while riding a scooter bearing registration No.KL-38-J-1292 when reached Urakunnu junction met with an accident of a Goods Van Mahindra & Mahindra bearing registration No.KL-38-B-2142 and sustained injuries ie., appearing deformity left leg, fracture of Tibia Fibula Shaft left have become a disabled and claimed a compensation of Rs.9 lakhs vide petition dated 18.01.2022. Vide Ext.P2 interim application bearing No.2 of 2022 was also preferred by the claimant on the ground that the offending vehicle had no valid insurance at the time of the accident and the petitioner being the registered owner has an intention to dispose off the assets and it would be very arduous for the petitioner to seek the execution of the award proposed to be passed at an appropriate time and therefore sought the intervention of the Court for passing a conditional order as per provision prescribed under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

3. Sri.George Mathew, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that learned MACT, did not wait for the service of notice on the application upon the petitioner herein, passed the impugned order. He submitted that provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 as per the provisions of Rule 395 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 is not applicable much less Rule 391A inserted vide notification dated 24.11.2018 as it pertains to only release of the vehicle involved in an accident by a Magistrate whereas the Magistrate is empowered to direct the owner of the vehicle to furnish a security in the absence of any insurance policy and insurance.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent though do not deny that the strict provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as per the Rule 391 would not abide but the principle carved out therein would be applicable. In order to counter the contention of counsel representing the petitioner, relied upon following two judgments of Supreme Court and one of the High Court. i 2010 (2) SCC 607 titled asJai Prakash v. M/s. National Insurance Company Limited and Others. ii Judgment dated 13.09.2018 in Civil Appeal No.9936 – 9937 of 2016 [2018 (2) TNMAC 479] iii 2008 (4) KLT 899 titled as S.P.Vasukumar Pillai v. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Others.

5. It is contended that in the judgment inJai Prakash the interest of the victims or injured met with an accident with a vehicle without insurance policy have been taken into consideration on the patron of Rule 6 of the Delhi Motor Vehicle Rules by issuing General directions to the Central Government to issue directions to the State Government for introduction of the Rules in their Local Motor Vehicle Rules. Since it was not done the controversy again came up for ponderance before the Supreme Court inUsha Devi and Another v. Pawan Kumar and Others wherein while observing the directions contained inJai Prakash and the fact that the notification have come into force, the matter was disposed of with a further direction that in case the amendments are not incorporated the same should be issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi