SUNDER LAL Vs. BALWANT HANMANT ALURKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is contended that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal could not have exercised the power contained in Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inasmuch as the provision had not been made available to the said Tribunal either by any provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act or by any rule framed thereunder.

(2.) Mr. Dhanda has cited 1969 ACJ 76 (Mad), 1968 ACJ 360 (Punj) and AIR 1958 Pat 427. In none of the cases the High Court became concerned with Section 110-C of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sub-section (1) in that provision is:

(3.) Rules framed under a statute cannot override the provisions contained in it. The rule-making power itself is delegated by a provision in the statute. It is no doubt true, that certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure have been specifically made applicable by sub-section (2) of Section 110-C as well as by the Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, but the scope of the power given by sub-section (1) of Section 110-C is to be appreciated in the light of Section 110-B which is specifically mentioned therein. When an application for compensation is preferred under Section 110-A the Tribunal deals with it in terms of Section 110-B. That provision prescribes that on receipt of an application for compensation made under Section 110-A the Tribunal shall after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim and may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to be just and the Tribunal has to specify the person or persons to whom the compensation shall be paid. The Tribunal has to specify the amount in the award and has to clearly state as to whether it shall be paid by the insurer or the owner or transferee of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them. In making the determination within Section 110-B the Tribunal is to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. Where after an application has been preferred in time the applicant finds that the injuries sustained by him are found to have caused such physical infirmity which may call for claiming higher compensation, will he be without the right to claim an-amendment of the application originally made by him under Section 11-A? Will not the Tribunal be able within the scope of Section 110-C (1) to follow the procedure which permits the allowing or refusing of the amendment sought?