Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Gagubhai And Others v. Goswami Bhikhu Gangaram .

Gujarat High Court

Jan 13, 1989

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Case Summary — Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal appeals (J.P. Desai, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Two appeals arose from a common judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kutch at Bhuj in M.A.C.P. No. 276 of 1983 and M.A.C.P. No. 272 of 1986. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 1,00,000 (one lac) in one application and Rs. 61,720 in the other. These two applications (and two additional applications related to the same incident with claims not exceeding Rs. 25,000) were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. The Tribunal followed a procedure of deciding the applications on affidavits (the procedure under Order XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure), which the appellants challenged for the two matters in which the claimed amounts exceeded Rs. 25,000. The State Government had issued Notifications under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act increasing the pecuniary jurisdiction of Auxiliary Tribunals (ultimately to Rs. 1 lac by a 1987 notification), and the Tribunal had acted in light of those notifications. The High Court considered whether the Tribunal erred in using the affidavit procedure for claims exceeding Rs. 25,000 and examined the relationship between those Notifications and the Rules made under Section 111A of the Act.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a Claims Tribunal may decide claims exceeding Rs. 25,000 by affidavit procedure (Order XIX, C.P.C.), contrary to the procedure prescribed by Motor Vehicles Rules (in particular Rules 300, 310 and 311).
Whether Notifications under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act that change the pecuniary jurisdiction of Main and Auxiliary Tribunals can validly alter the procedural requirements laid down in the Rules made under Section 111A of the Act.
What is the correct procedure to be followed by a Claims Tribunal in cases where the claim exceeds Rs. 25,000 — whether the Tribunal must follow the trial procedure of the C.P.C. (recording evidence after framing issues) as required by the Rules.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

The appellants contended that because their claims exceeded Rs. 25,000 the Claims Tribunal committed an error by following the procedure of deciding the applications on affidavits (i.e., using Order XIX, C.P.C.).
The appellants relied on the Rules (particularly Rules 300, 310 and 311 as last amended in 1980) to argue that when a claim exceeds Rs. 25,000 the Tribunal is required to follow the trial procedure of the Code of Civil Procedure — recording evidence after framing issues — and that this was not done in the present matters.

Position/Reasoning Recorded from the Tribunal and State Notifications

The Tribunal had proceeded on the basis that Government Notifications issued under Section 110 (increasing pecuniary jurisdiction of Auxiliary Tribunals to Rs. 1 lac) permitted use of the affidavit procedure (Order XIX, C.P.C.) in matters where the claim did not exceed Rs. 1 lac. The opinion records this as the Tribunal's impression arising from those Notifications.
The Court recorded the Notifications issued on 17-4-1978, 29-5-1980 and a 1987 Notification (No. G/8/87/6.MVD-1086-4619-T dated 28-1-1987) that progressively raised the pecuniary jurisdiction of Auxiliary Tribunals (from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 25,000 and then to Rs. 1 lac).

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's reasoning proceeded in a sequence of statutory-interpretative steps based on the text of the Motor Vehicles Rules and the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act:

The Court examined Rule 300 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 (the "Rules"), which requires that after framing issues the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to record evidence which each party may desire to produce.
It noted Rule 310 provides that where the Rules make no or insufficient provision the Claims Tribunal shall follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) for trials.
Rule 311 (the "savings" provision), as last amended in 1980, was analysed. The Court set out its operative clauses:
- For claims not exceeding Rs. 10,000, the Claims Tribunal may, at its discretion, after hearing arguments and examining documents and affidavits, decide the claim by concise judgment;
- For claims exceeding Rs. 10,000 but not exceeding Rs. 25,000, the Claims Tribunal may, at its discretion, follow the provisions of Order X of the C.P.C.
From this textual structure the Court concluded that for claims exceeding Rs. 25,000 the Claims Tribunal must follow the trial procedure of the C.P.C. (i.e., record evidence after framing issues).
The Court emphasised that Rule 311 had not been amended since 1980 and therefore the threshold and procedural regime embodied in that Rule remained operative: claims above Rs. 25,000 require following the C.P.C. trial procedure.
The Court considered the effect of Notifications issued under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act (which constituted Tribunals and set pecuniary limits for Main and Auxiliary Tribunals). It observed that Section 110 empowered the State Government to constitute Tribunals but did not empower the State Government to make rules governing procedure. The power to make rules (including procedures to be followed by a Claims Tribunal) is conferred by Section 111A of the Act.
Consequently, the Court held that the Notifications altering pecuniary jurisdiction (raising limits to Rs. 1 lac for Auxiliary Tribunals) concern only pecuniary jurisdiction and do not amend or supplant the procedural requirements prescribed in the Rules made under Section 111A. The Notifications therefore could not validly support the Tribunal's use of the affidavit procedure for claims above Rs. 25,000.
The Court found that because the Tribunal had decided the two appealed claims (each exceeding Rs. 25,000) by affidavit procedure contrary to the mandatory procedure in Rules 300 and 310 (and the thresholds in Rule 311), the awards were passed without following the procedure laid down in the Rules and thus were infirm.
The Court further recorded that two related applications with claims not exceeding Rs. 25,000 had their appeals withdrawn without prejudice, given the small amounts and the appropriateness of deciding those on affidavits under the Rules.
Finally, the Court noted that some Tribunals (specifically at Kutch) had been following the affidavit procedure for claims up to Rs. 1 lac, which the High Court described as plainly faulty; it therefore directed circulation of the judgment to all Claims Tribunals in the State to ensure the correct procedure is followed.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Both appeals were allowed; the awards passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No. 276 of 1983 and M.A.C.P. No. 272 of 1986 were set aside and the matters were remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal according to law by following the procedure for trial of suits as laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure and in Rules 300 and 310 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. The parties were directed to bear their own costs of these appeals.

Implications:

The direct effect is that the two awards in question have been annulled and the two applications must be retried by the Claims Tribunal applying the C.P.C. trial procedure (i.e., framing issues and recording oral evidence) because the claims exceeded Rs. 25,000.
Notifications made under Section 110 that alter pecuniary jurisdiction do not alter or override the procedural requirements laid down by Rules made under Section 111A; pecuniary jurisdiction changes do not authorize departure from Rule 311's procedure-based thresholds.
The Court ordered that this judgment be circulated to all Claims Tribunals in the State (with spare copies for Auxiliary Tribunals) to correct any practice of employing affidavit procedure in matters where Rule 311 and the Rules mandate following C.P.C. trial procedure.
No broader new statutory power was created by the judgment; rather, the Court clarified and enforced the existing division between jurisdictional notifications and procedural rules under the Act and Rules. The opinion effects procedural correction and remand for retrial in these specific matters.

Appeals allowed.

Show all summary ...

J.P Desai, J.:— These two appeals arise out of the common judgment delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kutch at Bhuj in M.A.C.P No. 276 of 1983 and M.A.C.P No. 272 of 1986 whereby awards for Rs. 1 lac and Rs. 61,720/- have been passed respectively in the aforesaid applications. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as they arise out of the common judgment delivered by the learned Tribunal.

2. In M.A.C.P No. 276 of 1983 the amount claimed was Rs. 1 lac while in M.A.C.P No. 272 of 1983, the amount claimed was Rs. 75,000/-. It may be mentioned here that two other applications were also filed arising out of the same incident in which the claim did not exceed Rs. 25,000/-. These four applications were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. It may be mentioned here that the procedure laid down by O. XIX of the C.P.C was followed by the Tribunal in disposing of all these applications. The claims in the two petitions exceed Rs. 25,000/- and, therefore, the grievance made by the appellants is that the learned Tribunal committed an error in following the procedure of deciding the applications on affidavits.

3. Rule 300 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959, which will hereinafter be referred to as ‘the Rules’ for the sake of brevity, says that after framing the issues, the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to record evidence thereon which each party may desire to produce. R. 310 of the Rules lays down that in so far as these rules make no provision or make insufficient provision, the Claims Tribunal shall follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for trial of Courts. The above two Rules have never been amended at any time. Rule 311 which is captioned as “savings”, which was lastly amended in the year 1980 reads as follows:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules—

(a) In case of claim not exceeding an amount of Rs. 10,000/- the Claims Tribunal may, at its discretion after hearing the arguments of the parties or of their legal practioners, if the parties are allowed to appear before it through a legal practioner under Rule 308, and examining the documents and affidavits accompanying the application for compensation, decide the claim by recording a concise judgment; and

(b) in case of claim exceeding an amount of Rs. 10,000/- but not exceeding an amount of Rs. 25,000/- the Claims Tribunal may follow, at its discretion the provisions of O. 10 of the Civil Procedure Code.”

Rule 311 as amended in 1980 reads as reprod uced above and it is an ad mitted fact that thereafter the said Rule has never been amended. In view of this, it is crystal clear that when the claim exceeds Rs. 25,000/- the Claims Tribunal, Main or Auxiliary as the case may be, has to follow the procedure laid down in the C.P.C for trial of suits. The Claims Tribunal has to record evidence which each party may desire to produce after the issues are framed when the claim exceeds Rs. 25,000/-. Such procedure has to be followed when the claim exceeds Rs. 25,000/- and that procedure having not been followed in the trial of the present applications, the awards passed by the Tribunal can be said to have been passed without following the procedure laid down in the Rules.

4. It may be mentioned here that Cl. (b) of R. 311 refers to O. 19, C.P.C.R 1 of O. 19, C.P.C gives power to the Court to decide any point to be proved by affidavit. This can be done only when the claim does not exceed Rs. 25,000/-.

5. It appears that the learned Tribunal has, in view of certain Notifications issued by the Government of Gujarat in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’), gathered an impression that when the claim does not exceed Rs. 1 lac, the Tribunal can follow the procedure laid down in O. 19, C.P.C It may be mentioned here that S. 110 of the Act confers powers upon the State Government to constitute a Claims Tribunal or Claims Tribunals and in exercise of those powers, the State Government issued a Notification on 17-1-1978 published in the Gujarat Government Gazette Extraordinary, Part IV-A on 17-4-1978 constituting certain Tribunals at Ahmedabad and in the districts the State of Gujarat. Thereafter, another Notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 110 of the Act on 29-5-1980 and that was published in the Gujarat Government Gazette, Extraordinary, Part IV-A on 29-5-1980 and the last Notification was issued in 1987 also in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 110 of the Act. Section 110 of the Act does not confer any power on the State Government to make any Rules. It only confers power on the State Government to constitute Tribunal which the State Government did from time to time by issuing the Notifications as stated above. It appears from the said Notifications that by the first Notification of 17-4-1978, it was provided that the Claims Tribunal presided over by the District Judge shall not adjudicate upon a claim for compensation for an amount which does not exceed Rs. 15000/- and it further provided that the other Claims Tribunals consisting of the Joint Judge or the Assistant Judge, as the case may be, shall not adjudicate upon a claim for compensation for an amount which exceeded Rs. 15,000/- The Claims Tribunal consisting of the District Judge is called Main Tribunal, while the other Tribunals consisting of the Joint Judge or Assistant Judge are known as Auxiliary Tribunals. Then, by the Notification issued in the year 1980 in the month of May, it was provided that a Claims Tribunal consisting of a Joint Judge or an Assistant Judge, as the case may be, shall adjudicate upon a cloaim which did not exceed Rs. 25000/-. In short, Rs. 25,000/- were substituted for Rs. 15,000/- in the Notification issued earlier. Therefore, by Notification No. G/8/87/6.MVD-1086-4619-T, dated 28-1-1987, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Auxiliary Tribunal was raised to Rs. 1 Lac. By virtue of the said Notification, the Claims Tribunal consisting of the District Judge could not adjudicate upon a claim for compensation for an amount which did not exceed Rs. 1 lac, while the Auxiliary Tribunal consisting of the Joint Judge or the Assistant Judge could not adjudicate upon a claim for compensation for an amount exceeding Rs. 1 Lac.

6. The above notification pertain only to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Main Tribunal as well as the Auxiliary Tribunal. These Notifications do not have any bearing on the question, so far as R. 311 is concerned. So far as the Rules are concerned, the power is conferred by S. 111A of the Act. Section 111A of the Act reads as follows:—

“Power of State Government.— A State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of S. 110 to 110-E, and in particular, such rules may provide for all or say of the following matters, namely:

(a) the form of application for compensation and the particulars it may contain; and the fees, if any, to be paid in respect of such applications;

(b) the procedure to be followed by a Claims Tribunal in holding an inquiry under this Chapter;

(d) the form and the manner in which and the fees (if any) on payment of which, an appeal may be preferred against an award of a Claims Tribunal; and

(e) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.”

7. It will appear from what has been discussed above that while the Notifications have been issued under S. 110 of the Act constituting Tribunals and raising the pecuniary jurisdiction of Auxiliary Tribunals from time to time, R. 311 has been amended lastly in the month of Aug. 1980. Thereafter, the Rule has never been amended. The procedure to be followed by a Claims Tribunal holding inquiry under Chap. VIII in which Ss. 110 to 110E fall is to be laid down by the Rules and not by any Notifications under S. 110 of the Act.

8. The discussion made above will go to show that the awards passed by the Claims Tribunal in these two applications are required to be set aside and the Tribunal is required to be directed to dispose of the said two Applications on merits in accordance with law in the light of the discussion made in this judgment by following the procedure for trial as laid down in Rules 300 and 310 of the Rules.

9. So far as the other two applications in which the claim did not exceed Rs. 25,000/- are concerned, Appeals being First Appeal No. 1407 of 1988 and First Appeal No. 1409 of 1988 were filed before this Court, but the said appeals have been withdrawn without prejudice to the contentions of the appellants in these two matters, looking to the smallness of the amount involved in those petitions and looking to the fact that the said Applications could have been decided on affidavits.

10. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, both these appeals are allowed, the awards passed by the learned Tribunal are hereby set aside and both the applications being M.A.C.P No. 276 of 1988 and M.A.C.P No. 272 of 1983 are remanded to the learned Tribunal for disposal according to law in the light of the observations made in this judgment by following the procedure for trial of suits as laid down in the C.P.C The parties to bear their own costs of both these appeals.

11. It appears from the remarks of the learned Tribunal which were called for by this Court that the procedure as laid down in O. 19 of the C.P.C is followed at least by the Tribunals at Kutch when the claim does not exceed Rs. 1 lac, even though it exceeds Rs. 25,000/-. Such procedure if followed by any Tribunal is, on the face of it, faulty. In view of this, we direct that the copies of this Judgment may be immediately forwarded to all the Claims Tribunals in the State with spare Copies for Auxiliary Tribunals so that the Tribunals in the State may follow the correct procedure as laid down in this judgment.