Allahabad High Court
Sardar Singh vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 12 July, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1992ACJ463, AIR1992ALL33, AIR 1992 ALLAHABAD 33, 1992 ALL. L. J. 324, (1992) 1 TAC 544, (1992) 2 ALL WC 1201
ORDER
1. Whether Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) with a view to decide an application under S. 166 of the Act has power to issue Commission to examine witnesses, as provided under 0. 26, R. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code) or in other words whether the provisions of O.26, R. 4 of the Code would apply to the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) is short question that falls for determination in the present revision.
2. The factual matrix is that an application before the Tribunal was filed by the applicant at the stage of evidence, to examine Dr. K. P. Srivastava, Head of Orthopaedics Department, and Dr. Rabi Semarwal, Senior Orthopaedics Surgeon, S. N. Medical College, Agra by issuing a Commission under O.26, R. 4 of the Code. That application has been rejected under the impugned order against which present revision has been filed. Even though the revision was dismissed on 29-4-91 but before the order could be signed, prayer was made on behalf of applicant that revision may be heard again consequently parties were heard at considerable length and as suggested by the learned counsel for the parties revision is being disposed of on merits.
2A. Under S. 166 of the Act application for the compensation arising out of an accident for the nature specified under sub-sec. (1) of S. 165 is to be made and under S. 168, Tribunal, after affording opportunity of being heard and after considering the claim shall pass an award specifying the person or persons to whom the compensation shall be paid and also specifying the amount which shall be paid by the Driver or owner of the vehicles involved in the accident or by all or any of them. S. 169 provides procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal. It provides that Tribunal may subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf (by the State Govt.) follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. Sub-Cl. (2) of S. 169 provides that the Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of S. 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. A bare reading of all the aforesaid provisions would indicate that Claims Tribu nal has powers subject to any Rules that may be made in this behalf and it has got the Powers as specified, for taking evidence on oath (O.18 (Eighteen), C.P.C.), enforcing attendance of witnesses (O.16, C.P.C.), Production of documents (O.13, C.P.C.) U.P. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules 1967 (for short Rules) framed under S. 111A of the (1939) Act are still applicable. R. 21 is set out as follows :
"21. Code of Civil Procedure to apply in certain cases:-- The following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall, so far.as may be, apply to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, namely, O. V, Rr. 9 to 13 and 15 to 33, O. IX, O.X1II, Rr.3 to 10, O.XVI, Rr.2 to 21, O. XV11, and O. XXIII, Rr. 1 to 3."
In view of aforesaid R. 21 of the U.P. Rules the provisions of 0. 26 of the Code providing for Commissions to examine the witnesses are not applicable. The provisions of S. 169 of the Act as stated above provide that the enquiry shall be made by the Tribunal under S. 168 subject to the Rules that may be made in this behalf. R. 21 of the Rules made in this behalf does not provide the provisions of O.26 to be applicable. No doubt Tribunal is not Civil Court rather it is persona designata. It may have certain powers of the Civil Court for the purposes of taking evidence on oath etc. but that itself would not constitute it to be a Civil Court. Only those provisions of the Code have been made applicable which are specifically provided under different provisions of the Act and Rules framed in this behalf.
4. In Om Prakash v. Smt. Rukmini Devi, 1982 All LR 524 : 1982 Acc CJ 45: (AIR 1982 All 389) a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. N. Singh (as his Lordship then was) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. M. Dayal, JJ. have ruled that, to the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal entire provisions of Code of Civil Procedure would not apply rather only those provisions as mentioned in R. 21 of U.P. Motor Accidents Claims Rules, 1967 would apply. In the present case provisions of O.26 of the Code have not been mentioned under R. 21 consequently it does not apply to the proceedings before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was, accordingly, justified in rejecting the application of the applicant for examining the Doctors on Commission in view of the provisions under O.26 of the Code.
5. There are some cases of some other High Courts. In P. Shanmugham v. Madras Motor & General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1974 Mad 363, the reference was made about the ft. 18 of Madras Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules but in our State we have got different Rules and our R.28 admits no exception and R. 21 does not provide for O.26 of the Code to be applicable. The wisdom of Legislature cannot be substituted by the Court rather it can only interpret.
6. Similarly in Kamala Deva v, Sasadhar Behera, AIR 1987 Ori 257, claimant himself made an application under those circumstances learned Judge of Orissa High Court held that claimant is entitled to receive compensation and for that purpose if it finds that the claimant is incapable to appear before it, it may issue Commission. But facts of present case are different. In the present case Doctors are sought to be examined on Commission hence that case is also besides the point.
7. Rule 12 provides that evidence of any medical witness shall, as nearly as may be, be taken down word for word; therefore, in the present case Doctors must be examined by the Tribunal before it in presence of parties and their counsel so that statement may be recorded.
8. There is another aspect of the matter that the civil revision has been filed under S. 115 of the Code. Under S. 115 of the Code High Court may call for record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to the High Court. In the present case by the impugned order it is obvious that it is not a case decided and apart from that it cannot be said that Tribunal has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it nor it has acted illegally, consequently there is no scope for interference with the impugned order.
9. In view of the premises aforesaid considering scope of the provisions of S. 169 of the Act and Rr. 12 and 21 of the U.P. Rules I am of the view that O.26 of the Code would not apply to the proceedings before the Motor, Accidents Claims Tribunal, consequently revi-sion fails and is dismissed. Interim order dated 4-3-91 is discharged.
10. Revision dismissed.