M. Krishnan vs Pankaj Jethalal Sha

Veeraswami, J.—The only point in this petition is whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal possesses the power to appoint a

Commission for recording evidence of a witness in Bombay. The Tribunal held that it had the power in view of Section 110-C (2) of the Motor

Vehicles Act. In my view, the Tribunal was right. No doubt. Rule 18 of the Madras Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1961 does not

mention Order XXVI of the CPC . Even so, Sub-section (2) of Section 110-C is sufficiently wide to include the power. It speaks of the power of

a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses. The substance of this power is that, for the

purpose of disposing of a claim before it, the Tribunal will have all the powers related to taking of evidence on oath and of enforcing attendance of

witnesses, including the power to have evidence recorded on commission.

But the power so entrusted to the Tribunal should be exercised in accordance with the principles settled by courts in the light of the related

provisions in the Civil Procedure Code. It is only in very extraordinary circumstances that a party to a litigation will be allowed to be examined on

commission, as for instance, sickness disabling the movement of the party from attending Court or Tribunal to give evidence. Mr. Raghavachariar

says the Tribunal has not applied its mind to this aspect in including within the scope of the commission examination of the claimant at Bombay.

While the view of the Tribunal that it has power to appoint a Commission to record evidence is confirmed, it is directed to consider whether, in the

light of what has been stated supra, the Tribunal would still think that the claimant can be examined on commission. Subject to this observation, the

Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, but with no costs.