New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Satnam Kaur and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This revision petition is filed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar, refusing to issue a Commission to record the statement of the Regional Transport Authority, who is the Licensing Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act to show that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence and the driving licence which was produced in court was a fake one. The Tribunal dismissed the said application on the ground that under Rule 232 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Order XXVI, Civil Procedure Code, has not been made applicable. Therefore, the Tribunal has no power to issue a Commission upon the said provision. I am of the opinion that the Tribunal committed an error in exercising the jurisdiction. u/s 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Claims Tribunal follows such summary procedure as it thinks fit subject to any rule that may be made for holding an enquiry u/s 168 of the Act and under Sub-section (2) of Section 169, 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. Rule 232 makes certain provisions applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. The non-inclusion of Order XXVI therein does not amount to say that there is any exclusion of power conferred on a civil court under Order XXVI, Civil Procedure Code. A reading of Section 169 clearly shows that the procedure to be followed in the enquiry is summary and the Tribunal has got all the powers of a civil court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath. Rule 232 of the Motor Vehicles Rules only deals with Order V which relates to issue of summons, Order IX which relates to ex parte proceedings, Order XIII which relates to production and impounding of documents and Order XVI relates to summoning and attendance of witnesses, Order XVII which relates to the adjournment of cases, Order XXI which relates to execution and Order XXIII which relates to compromise and withdrawal of the proceedings. These provisions do not specifically deal with taking of evidence on oath. Taking of evidence is governed by Sub-section (2) of Section 169 of the Act. Taking of evidence includes the issuance of a Commission for recording the evidence. The Commissioner who had been appointed under Order XXVI of the CPC acts as an officer of the court for the purpose of recording evidence. Therefore, by making a rule even the State Government cannot exclude the provisions of Order XXVI which enables the court to appoint a Commission for recording the evidence. Since, according to Sub-section (2) of Section 169, a Tribunal shall have all the powers of a civil court for the purpose of recording the evidence. That power also includes the power of issuing a Commission for recording the evidence. If it is held that the court has no power to issue a Commission, it may lead to disastrous consequences. Suppose an injured who is completely bedridden and unable to move about and is staying at a place far away from the court, can it be said that he cannot be examined on Commission when his presence in the court cannot be procured because of his inability to come to the court. Such a situation is not expected. The rules of procedure are intended to advance and in furtherance of the cause of justice. Therefore, it cannot be said that the court has no power under Rule 232 to issue a Commission and the provisions of Order XXVI, CPC are excluded by implication since the same has not been mentioned in Rule 232.

Accordingly, I allow the revision petition and direct the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar, to issue Commission to examine the Regional Transport Authority, Cuttack. It is made clear that the expenses for the Commission shall be borne by the insurance company irrespective of the result of the claim petition.