GAGUBHAI ALIAS RAMAIYA MURA Vs. GOSWAMI BHIKAU GANGARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the common judgment delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Kutch at Bhuj in M. A. C. P. No. 276 of 1983 and M. A. C. P. No. 272 of 1983 whereby awards for Rs. 1 lac and Rs. 61 720 have been passed respectively in the two aforesaid applications. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as they arise out of the common judgment delivered by the learned Tribunal.

(2.) In M. A. C. P. No. 276 of 1983 the amount claimed was Rs. 1 lac while in M. A. C. P. No. 272 of 1983 the amount claimed was Rs. 75 0 It may be mentioned here that two other applications were also filed arising out of the same incident in which the claim did not exceed Rs 25 0 These four applications were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. It may be mentioned here that the procedure laid down by Order XIX of the Civil Procedure Code was followed by the Tribunal in disposing of all these applications. The claim in the two petitions exceeded Rs. 25 0 and therefore the grievance made by the appellants is that the learned Tribunal committed an error in following the procedure of deciding the applications on affidavits.

(3.) Rule 300 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules 1959 which will hereinafter be referred to as the Rules for the sake of brevity says that after framing the issues the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to record evidence thereon which each party may desire to produce. Rollick 310 of the Rules lays down that in so far as these Rules make 3 provision or make insufficient provision the Claims Tribunal shall follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for trial of suits. The above two Rules have never been amended at any time. Rule 311 which is captioned as Savings which was lastly amended in the year 1980 reads as follows: