9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal erred in following the procedure of deciding applications on affidavits when the claims exceeded a certain amount. 2. The impact of Rule 311 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 on the procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunal. 3. The interpretation and application of Notifications issued by the Government of Gujarat regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Main and Auxiliary Tribunals. 4. The authority of the State Government to make rules under Section III A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and its relevance to the procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunal. Analysis: 1. The appeals arose from a common judgment by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, where awards were passed for different amounts. The appellants contested the procedure followed by the Tribunal in deciding applications on affidavits when the claims exceeded a certain threshold, contrary to the procedure mandated by the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) for claims over a specified amount. 2. Rule 311 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 stipulates the procedure for Claims Tribunals based on the claim amount. When the claim exceeds a certain sum, the Tribunal is required to follow the trial procedure laid down in the C.P.C., including recording evidence after framing issues. Failure to adhere to this procedure can render the awards passed by the Tribunal as not in compliance with the Rules. 3. The Notifications issued by the Government of Gujarat regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of Main and Auxiliary Tribunals were discussed. While these notifications raised the jurisdictional limits for Tribunals, they did not impact the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal as prescribed by Rule 311 of the Rules. The Tribunal's reliance on these notifications for following the procedure of O. 19, C.P.C. for claims below a certain amount was deemed erroneous. 4. The authority of the State Government to make rules under Section III A of the Motor Vehicles Act was highlighted. While the notifications issued under Section 110 of the Act pertained to the jurisdiction of Tribunals, the procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunal is governed by the Rules, and any amendments or rules related to the procedure must be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In conclusion, the High Court set aside the awards passed by the Tribunal and directed a reevaluation of the applications in accordance with the correct trial procedure as per the Rules. The Court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure and directed that the judgment be circulated to all Claims Tribunals to ensure uniformity in the application of the correct procedure.
|
