MOHANDAS Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed an application MAC No. 256/85 before the 1st respondent under S.11A of the Motor Vehicles Act for award of compensation in respect of an accident which occurred on 5-12-1984. The matter came up for trial after framing of issues. Examination of witnesses started on 2-6-1986, and the oral evidence on the side of the petitioner was closed on 26-6-1986. Altogether eight persons (including the petitioner) were examined on his side, of which five, namely PWs 1 to 5, were medical men. The other three were the petitioner, his wife and an attendant.

(2.) The case stood posted to 30-6-1986 for the respondents' evidence, but they had no evidence to adduce and the Tribunal posted the case for arguments to 3-7-1986 Subsequently, and on application, further documentary evidence was received and matter was posted for arguments on some days between 14th and 21st July, 1986. At this stage, the then Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was transferred and the present Presiding Officer took charge. The present incumbent in office heard the arguments on various days between July 29 and August 26, 1986, after which he posted the case for award on September 6, 1986. The award was not however, pronounced on that day. The case was adjourned to September, 12 and again to September 27, 1986. On that day, instead of passing the award, the Tribunal passed an order Ext. P1 in these terms:-

(3.) S.110C of the Motor Vehicles Act (the Act) delineates the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal in holding the enquiry, under S.110B on an application filed under S.110A for compensation. The Tribunal may follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf. The Kerala Motor Accidents 'Claims Tribunal Rules, 1977, deal with this aspect of the matter. R.16 and 21 are relevant in the context of this case. R.16 provides that the Tribunal shall make a brief memorandum of the substance of the evidence of each witness, that it shall be written and signed by the members of the Tribunal, and that it shall form part of the record. The proviso to the rule stipulates that the evidence of medical witnesses shall as far as possible be taken down word by word. R.21 attracts certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to the proceedings before the Tribunal. O.18 is not one of those provisions made applicable to these proceedings. It is apparently because of this that the Tribunal has chosen to pass the order Ext. P1 proposing to try the case again.