TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which one Shri Subhash Chand Pahwa who was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation from Jaipur to Delhi died due to accident by colliding with a truck. A claim petition was filed on August 23, 1983 by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely, the widow, minor son and daughter of the deceased against the appellant and respondent No. 4, Shri Deepak Thakur who was the driver of Truck No. HRU 2995, respondent No. 5, Shri Durga Prasad Parnami, the owner of the said truck, respondent No. 6 M/s. New Delhi Assurance Company limited are respondent No. 7, Ami Chand being the driver of bus No. RNB 7720 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. 4. The Accidents Claim Tribunal passed an award in favour of the claimants, namely, Smt. Poonam Pahwa and her minor son and daughter and against the respondents including the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) for a sum of ₹ 2.5 lacs with 12% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realisation. 5. The appellant-Corporation deposited a cheque of ₹ 3,36,111.30 on June 27, 1986 in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es 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 Section and Chapter XXXV of Criminal Procedure Code 1898 (Act 5 of 1988). 7. Rules have been framed under Section 111A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Rule 20 of the said Rules prescribes that Order X, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30 Order IX, Order XXXIII Rules 1 to 3 should be applicable in the proceedings before Claims Tribunal. 8. The Punjab Government vide its Notification No. GSR 68/CA4/39/SIII-Adm/(I) 68 dated June 21, 1968 amended Rule 20 to the following effect: In the Punjab Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1969 in Rule 20 between the words and figure Order XVII and Order XXXIIO, the word and figure Order XXI shall be inserted. 9. Mr. Jain has contended that the said amendment of Rule 20 had not been incorporated in the Rules applicable in the State of Haryana. Hence, in respect of the claim petition on account of accident taking place in the State of Haryana, the Provisions of Order XXI of the CPC has no manner of application. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... June 21, 1968 and published in Gazette on July 12, 1968. As the Haryana has adopted the Punjab Rules in 1972 by implication it will mean that Punjab Rules as stood amended on the date of adoption of Punjab Rules in Haryana in 1972, was applicable in the State of Haryana. Dr. Dhavan has submitted that in the impugned decision, no reference to 1972 notification of the Haryana Government has been made and only reference is to the judgments of Punjab and Haryana High Court of 1968 and 1970 (1968 ACT 360 (DB) and AIR 1970 Pun506. 13. Dr. Dhavan has submitted that if Order XXI of Civil Procedure Code is expressly applicable, law is well settled that the judgment debtor has obligation to notify the date of deposit of decretal amount to the decree holder. But even if Order XXI Civil Procedure Code is not expressly applicable, the Tribunal having been exclusively vested with the power of adjudication of the claims arising out of accident of motor vehicles, it has to decide such claims fairly and reasonably by applying the underlying principles of the Civil Procedure Code. 14. Dr. Dhavan has submitted that the question, therefore, requires to be considered in his case is: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he State of Haryana adopted the Punjab Rules in 1972 after the inclusion of Order XXI in the Punjab Rules in 1968, by GSR 20/CA-4/39/S 111A/72 dated January 28, 1972. 16. Dr. Dhavan has submitted that the motor Vehicles legislation creates a Claims Tribunal which is a body for the purpose of adjudicating claims and it is headed by qualified legal personnel and it has a duty to give parties a chance to be heard and make an award determining the amount of compensation. For the said contention, Dr. Dhavan has drawn the attention of the Court to Sections 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and corresponding Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. Dr. Dhavan has submitted that the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunals are in lieu of Civil Courts by excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts. For such contention, reference has been made to Section 110F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and corresponding Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Dr. Dhavan has submitted that it will, therefore, appear that the Tribunal has a duty to act judicially in a fair manner consistent with the statutory scheme that ousts the jurisdiction of the civil Courts. Dr. Dhavan has submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the footing that they are consistent with the public policy. In support of this contention, Dr. Dhavan has referred to the decision of this Court in P. Sambamurthy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. : (1987)ILLJ221SC where the application under Order XXIII in the writ proceedings has been upheld. Dr. Dhavan has submitted that the practice of this Court and the High Courts has been to incorporate general principles underlying the provisions of Civil Procedure Code even though such provisions of the Code have not been specifically incorporated in the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules. In this connection, Dr. Dhavan has referred to the decision in State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi [1979]3SCR184 where Order XXXIII dealing with the provisions for suing as forma pauperis has been made applicable in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Dr. Dhavan has also referred to the decision in Bhagwati Devi v. I.G. Goel (1983) ACJ 123 where it has been held following the principle in Darshana Devi, that claims tribunals are courts within the meaning of Section 25 of the CPC. Dr. Dhavan has also referred to a number of decisions of various High Courts where the application of the principle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court to intimate and if the Court has committed the mistake in not informing the decree holder, the judgment debtor cannot suffer on account of the laches of the Court. Dr. Dhavan has submitted that since Rule 20 was amended by the State of Punjab in 1968 and Haryana has adopted the said Rule in 1972, it should be held that the Haryana has adopted Rule 20 with all amendments incorporated in Punjab Rules on the date adoption of Punjab Rule by Haryana. Hence, the liability under Order XXI Rule 1 CPC because of the express application of Order XXI in the Punjab Rules since adopted by State of Haryana cannot be evaded by the Judgment debtor. 24. Dr. Dhavan has further submitted that even if it is assumed that the State of Haryana has adopted the Punjab Rules of 1964 without amendment effected subsequently in 1968 by which Order XXI Civil Procedure Code has been made expressly applicable, the Tribunal has the authority to apply the underlying principle of Order XXI Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code in awarding interest against the judgment debtor because such principle under Order XXI Rule 1 is consistent with justice and fairplay and the Tribunal having been vested with exclusiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statute. 26. In the decision in Bolani Ores' case, the question came up for consideration of this Court as to whether the definition of 'motor vehicles' in Section 2(18) of the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930 as incorporated in Orissa by the Orissa Amendment Act of 1940 will include the definition 'motor vehicles' in the Motor Vehicles Act as amended in 1956. It has been held by this Court that incorporation of the definition of 'motor vehicles' in the Orissa Taxation Act would not be affected by subsequent amendment of the definition of 'motor vehicle' in the Motor Vehicles Act. In appreciating the definition of 'motor vehicle' as incorporated by the Taxation Act, regard must be had to the intention of the legislature in adopting such a method, its purpose and intendment as also the definition of the Motor Vehicles Act. It has also been indicated that nature of tax under the Taxation Act must remain compensatory and regulatory in character. If a vehicle does not use the public road, it cannot be taxed. Therefore, legislature only intended to incorporate by reference to the definition of motor vehicles as in 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. Therefore, the appellant cannot escape its liability to pay interest to the decree holder for the period between the date of deposit of the decretal amount and the date of notice of such deposit of the decree holder. 29. Even if it is assumed that by adopting the Punjab Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules 1964 the subsequent amendments effected in the said Rules were not adopted or incorporated by the State of Haryana and therefore, Order XXI of the CPC cannot be held to be expressly applicable in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules of Haryana, the appellant, in our view, can be fastened with the liability to pay interest for the aforesaid period on account of not giving notice of the deposit of the decretal amount to the decree holder by applying the underlying principles of Order XXI Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has been constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act to adjudicate the disputes arising out of claims on account of motor accidents. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has been constituted by given the exclusive jurisdiction to determine such disputes by excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts. The Motor Acciden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edure Code on the score of inconsistency with provisions of Land Acquisition Act relating to awards under the said Act has been indicated and for the said reason, applicability of Order XXI, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code as held in Mathunni's case has been overruled. But applicability of Order XXI Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code in other cases has not been doubted and the principle indicated in Mathunni's case has also not been discarded. On the contrary, it has been held in Prem Nath's case that the decision of this Court in Meghraj v. Bayabai [1970]1SCR523 since relied in Mathunni's case is applicable to a debtor and creditor in an ordinary civil suit governed by Civil Procedure Code. 32. It appears to us that the provisions of Order XXI Rule 1 are not in any way inconsistent with the provisions for awarding just and fair compensation in Motor Accident Claims. The real purpose of awarding just and fair compensation to the victim of the accident or the legal heirs of such victim will be fulfilled by applying the principle of Order XXI Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code so that the awarded is not deprived of the opportunity of gainfully utilising the amount under the aw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
