LILLY VICTOR Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are six petitioners in this Original Petition. Petitioners 1 to 5 are brothers of one Nohah Victor, who died on 31-1-1984. The 6th petitioner is the Advocate of petitioners No. 1 to S. A petition was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Calicut (1st respondent) as MAC No. 174 of 1984, by the first five petitioners for the grant of compensation on account of the death of Sr. Nohah Victor due to injuries sustained by him ia a motor vehicle accident. Ext. P1 is a copy of the petition filed before the Tribunal. There is a prayer to pay the compensation to petitioners 3 and 4. On 29-11-1984, the Tribunal ordered that the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- under S.92A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (1st respondent in the petition) was directed to pay Rs.15.000/ within two weeks from the date of the order. Initially, it was not deposited: The said amount was collected and deposited in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Calicut in pursuance to the directions of this Court in OP No. 5223 of 1986. The petitioners filed IA No. 2970/86 before the Tribunal for the issue of cheque for Rs.15,000/- in the name of their Advocate (6th petitioner herein). Ext. P2 affidavit dated 8-8-1986 states so. By Ext. P3 dated 30-9-1986, the first respondent directed that five cheques for Rs.3,000/ each shall be issued to the petitioners on production of separate payment schedule and receipts. The prayer for issuing the cheque to the Advocate was disallowed. The first respondent placed reliance on Circular No. 3 of 1986 dated 25-1-1986, issued by the High Court. The Circular, aforesaid, is Ext. P4. The petitioners pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P3, and in the alternative, they also pray that if it is considered that Ext. P4 Clause.(b) is a total bar against issuing cheques in the name of Advocates or to mean that the cheques should be issued only in the name of the claimant or claimants, Ext. P4 Clause.(b) may also be quashed. The petitioners pray for a direction to the first respondent to issue the cheque for Rs.15,000/- in the name of the 6th petitioner.

(2.) I heard counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P. K. Musa. It was contended that the first respondent totally misunderstood and misconstrued Ext. P4 Circular issued by the High Court, and in particular, Clause.(b) thereof. Reliance was placed on R.10 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1977 which envisages that a party can appear through a legal practitioner before the Claims Tribunal. As also in the Vakalath executed by the petitioners in MAC 174/84, the advocate was specifically authorised to receive all the amounts due to the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that under R.360 of the Civil Rules of Practice, payment of amount due to a party can be made over to the pleader, if the Vakalath authorises such payment. Apart from the above, in this case, the first respondent KSRTC did not object to the issue of cheque to the 6th petitioner Advocate. Even then, the first respondent Tribunal passed Ext. P3 for issuing five cheques for Rs.3000 each to the petitioners on production of separate payment schedule and receipts, and rejected the prayer for the issue of cheque to the Advocate. The reliance placed on Circular No.3 of 1986, issued by the High Court, is unjustified. Clause (b) of Ext. P4 Circular, does not lay down that the cheques should be issued only in the name of the parties or that cheques should not be issued in the name of the advocate appearing for the parties. If it is so construed, it is unconstitutional and void. It is violative of S.30 of the Advocates Act and S.14 of the Bar Councils Act. The petitioners pray that Ext. P3 may be quashed.

(3.) In Ext. P3, the first respondent Tribunal, stated as follows: