Whether Sections 35 and 35A of the Civil Procedure Code Apply in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Proceedings

A recurring question in motor accident litigation is whether the cost provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — particularly Sections 35 and 35A CPC — apply before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). Claimants and insurers frequently dispute who should bear the costs of litigation, and whether a Tribunal can impose compensatory costs on a party for raising a false or vexatious claim or defence. The answer is more nuanced than a simple yes or no, because the Tribunal operates under a special statutory framework that only selectively borrows from the CPC.

The Scope of Sections 35 and 35A CPC in Ordinary Civil Litigation

Sections 35, 35A and 35B of the CPC, together with Order XXA, form the cost regime in ordinary civil suits. As one decision summarises:

Section 35 of the Code deals with the award of cost and Section 35A with award of compensatory costs in respect of false or vexatious claims or defences. 2005 5 Supreme 236

Section 35 confers discretion on the court to award costs to the successful party. Section 35A permits compensatory costs against a party who brings or defends a claim falsely or vexatiously, subject to a statutory ceiling:

Under Section 95 cost can be awarded upto Rs. 50,000/- and under Section 35A, the costs awardable are upto Rs. 3,000/-. 2005 5 Supreme 236

These provisions are discretionary safeguards designed to deter frivolous litigation, but their application depends on the forum in which the proceedings are pending.

Why the MACT Is Not Treated as an Ordinary Civil Court

The starting point is the status of the Claims Tribunal itself. Under Section 165 and Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal follows a summary procedure of its own choosing, subject to rules framed under the Act:

In holding any inquiry under section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1375

Courts have consistently held that:

• A Claims Tribunal established under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not a civil court, though it possesses many powers of one. 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1375
• The Tribunal is deemed to be a civil court only for limited purposes, such as Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 22915
• The CPC, the Evidence Act and similar provisions are not strictly applicable to MACT inquiries; only those provisions made applicable through the Central Motor Vehicles Rules or State Motor Vehicles Rules are attracted, though the principles behind the Code will be attracted even in inquiries under section 168 of the M.V. Act. 2014 0 Supreme(Tri) 116
• The powers of a civil court vested in the Tribunal under Section 169 do not extend to powers not expressly conferred, such as review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 311

This selective incorporation is deliberate: the MV Act is welfare legislation designed to provide speedy compensation to accident victims, free from the hyper technicality of ordinary civil procedure. 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 968

How Costs Are Actually Awarded Before the MACT

Although the general CPC cost provisions do not automatically apply, Tribunals are not powerless to award costs. High Courts have clarified the framework:

• A MACT has jurisdictional competence to award costs in claims under Sections 163A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and taxable costs may be ascertained with reference to the Civil Rules of Practice and the Advocates Fees Rules, even where those rules are not specifically applicable to Tribunal proceedings. 2011 0 Supreme(Ker) 765
• Section 172 of the MV Act contains its own cost mechanism, with a maximum ceiling of Rs. 1,000 for special costs, and it does not authorise striking off a defence merely for non-payment of costs. 2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 8410

The Section 35A Question: Punitive Costs for Vexatious Claims

The most instructive ruling on Section 35A in the MACT context involved an insurer ordered to pay punitive costs of Rs. 5,000 for raising a limitation objection. The Court held:

No claim had been advanced by the appellant, urging that the claims filed by the respondents was false or vexatious, therefore the bar in Section 35A was not applicable. 2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 8410

The Court further ruled that Tribunals cannot impose arbitrary punishment costs without adhering to statutory provisions, and that raising bona fide legal questions — even unsuccessfully — cannot be penalised as a vexatious act. 2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 8410

In short, Section 35A CPC is not routinely applied by MACTs as a standalone power; where costs are imposed, they must trace back to the MV Act, the applicable rules, or judicially recognised principles, and must remain within statutory ceilings.

Related Procedural Differences Worth Noting

The inapplicability of CPC provisions extends beyond costs:

• A claim petition under Section 166 MV Act is not a civil suit, and provisions like Order I Rule 10 CPC (joinder of parties) do not apply; the doctrine of non-joinder or misjoinder of parties has no place in claim proceedings. 2017 0 Supreme(MP) 519
• On execution, a civil court receiving a transferred MACT award must follow the mode of recovery under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act (realisation through the Collector as an arrear of land revenue), not the general execution provisions of the CPC. 2011 0 Supreme(Cal) 473

These examples reinforce the same principle: the CPC applies to MACT proceedings only to the extent expressly incorporated, and otherwise only its underlying principles operate.

Key Takeaways

1. Sections 35 and 35A CPC govern costs and compensatory costs in ordinary civil suits, but they are not automatically applicable before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal is not a civil court; it follows a summary procedure under Sections 165, 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with CPC provisions attracted only through rules. 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1375 and 2014 0 Supreme(Tri) 116
3. MACTs can still award litigation costs, drawing on the MV Act (including Section 172), the applicable Motor Vehicles Rules, and Civil Rules of Practice principles. 2011 0 Supreme(Ker) 765 and 2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 8410
4. Compensatory costs under Section 35A cannot be imposed arbitrarily; statutory ceilings and a genuine finding of falsehood or vexation are prerequisites. 2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 8410

The interplay between the CPC and the MV Act remains fact-specific, and outcomes may vary across jurisdictions. This discussion is general information and not a substitute for advice on a particular claim from a qualified advocate.