Lucky Bharat Garage (P) Ltd. vs Shanti Devi Shrivastava and Others

T.P. Naik, J.—The only question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the Notification No. 638-10105/II-A (2) dated Bhopal the 21st January 1965, issued by the State Government appointing the Second Additional District Judge, Raipur to be a one-man Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal u/s 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') is valid.

Under Sub-section (1) of Section 110 of the Act ''a State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinafter referred to as ''Claims Tribunals'') for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles''. Under Sub-section (2) ''a Claims Tribunal shall consist of such number of members as the State Government may think fit to appoint''. Sub-section (3) then lays down the qualifications for appointment as a member of a Claims Tribunal. The qualifications are that the person to be so appointed is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court, or is, or has been, a District Judge, or is qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court.

Acting under the aforesaid provisions, the State Government by its notification aforesaid appointed ''the Second Additional District Judge, Raipur'' to be a single member Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur. The notification reads thus:

In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (IV of 1939), the State Government hereby appoints the Second Additional District Judge, Raipur as a member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur, constituted under this department''s Notification No. 3063-3249/II-A (2)/59 dated the 7th August 1959 in place of Shri R.G. Pawar, who has since been transferred ; and for that purpose amends the said notification as follows ; namely:

In the schedule appended to the said notification, in column (5) against entry 3 relating to Claims Tribunal, Raipur, for the existing words "Second Additional District Judge, Raipur" shall be substituted.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh.

Sd/- Iswar Dass

Deputy Secretary to Government.

The contention is that the notification is in violation of Section 110 of the Act in so far as it permits a person to be a member of the Tribunal who may not fulfil the qualifications enunciated in Sub-section (3) of Section 110 of the Act. The argument is that the Second Additional District Judge, Raipur need not necessarily be a person who fulfils the requirements of Section 110 of the Act, because in the State of Madhya Pradesh an Additional District Judge is neither a District Judge nor a person who is necessarily qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court.

An Additional District Judge in Madhya Pradesh is not necessarily qualified for appointment as a High Court Judge, because under Article 217 of the Constitution of India a person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India, or has for at least ten years been an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession ; and an Additional District Judge need not necessarily be a person who has been a Civil Judge for at least ten years, nor is he necessarily a person who has for at least ten years been an advocate, because the minimum requirement for appointment as an Additional District Judge from amongst the members of the bar is that he should be an advocate or a pleader having practised for not less than seven years at the bar: State of Madhya Pradesh ; Law Department, Notification No. 15706-6640-XXI-B, dated Bhopal the 25th April 1964. It would thus be seen that in conceivable cases a person may be an Additional District Judge who does not fulfil the qualifications prescribed for appointment as a Judge of a High Court in Article 217 of the Constitution.

It may, however, be argued that an Additional District Judge is a District Judge'' within the meaning of Section 110 of the Act.

In Article 236 of the Constitution the expression ''District Judge'' includes ''Judge of a civil Court, additional District Judge, joint District Judge, assistant District Judge, chief Judge of a small cause Court, Chief Presidency Magistrate, Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge'' but that definition, as the Article itself shows, is for the purposes of Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution. It can have no relevance for the purpose of interpreting the expression ''District Judge'' as occurring in the Motor Vehicles Act.

In the General Clauses Act (X of 1897) Clause (17) of Section 3 defines ''District Judge'' to mean ''the Judge of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The question, therefore, is whether an Additional District Judge is the Judge of a principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. The answer is that he is not, because u/s 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958 there are four classes o Civil Courts, the Court of the District Judge, the Court of the Additional District Judge, the court of the civil Judge Class I and the Court of Civil Judge Class II and u/s 7 of that Act the principal civil Court of original Jurisdiction is the Court of the District Judge. Under that Act the Court of the Additional District Judge is thus specifically distinct from the Court of the District Judge and cannot be called the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction'' within the meaning of the General Clauses Act.

It was, however, argued that in so far as the present incumbent of the office of the Second Additional District Judge fulfilled the requirements of Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the notification, though defective, need not be quashed. I do not agree. The Motor Vehicles Act permitted the State Government to constitute Claims Tribunals by a notification under sect ion 110 of the Act and the powers must, therefore, be exercised in conformity with that Act. In appointing the Second Additional District Judge, Raipur as a one-member Claims Tribunal, the State Government was permitting the appointment of a person, who need not necessarily fulfil the qualifications prescribed under Sub-section (3) of Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to be a member of the Claims Tribunal. The aforesaid notification was thus defective and ultra vires the Act and has to be quashed.

I, therefore, hereby quash the said notification and hold that the Claims Tribunal which has been appointed under that invalid notification has no jurisdiction to entertain the claims of non-Applicants 1 to 6.

The revision is allowed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 50/- , if certified.