NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO Vs. MOLIA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. (F) Appeal No. 162 of 1965 D/17- 12-1968, Dr. Sarvar Hussain v. Auto Instalment Co. , Private Ltd. In both the cases a preliminary point has been raised to the effect that the appointment of the additional District Judge as a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by official designation is invalid and, therefore, the Court below had no jurisdiction to try the case. In support of this, attention is invited to the observations of our brother, Naik J. In lucky Bharat Garage (Private) Ltd. , Raipur v. Smt. Shanti Devi, Civil Revn. No. 190 of 1966 D/- 27-9-1968 (MP ). It may be necessary to examine the reasoning of our learned brother.

(2.) THE following Notification was Issued:

(3.) OUR learned brother Naik J. felt that that Notification was in violation of Section 110 of the Act in so far as it permits a person to be a member of the Tribunal who may not fulfil the qualifications enunciated in Sub-section (3) of Section 110 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It was argued before him that the Second Additional district Judge, Raipur, need not necessarily be a person who fulfils the requirements of Section 110 of the Act, because in the State of Madhya Pradesh an Additional District Judge is neither a District Judge, nor a person who is necessarily qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court. Article 217 of the Constitution of India prescribes the qualifications for appointment of a person as a Judge of a High Court to the effect that he must have put in 10 years' practice at the High Court Bar or must have held a judicial office in the territory of India at least for 10 years. Therefore, Naik J. thought that there might be a conceivable case where a person may be an Additional District Judge who has not fulfilled the qualifications prescribed for appointment as a Judge of a High Court under Article 217 of the constitution of India. Referring to the definition of a 'district Judge' in Article 236 of the Constitution of India Naik J. observed that although it may include a Judge of a Civil Court, Additional District Judge, Joint District Judge. Assistant District judge, Chief Judge of a Small Cause Court, Chief Presidency Magistrate, Additional chief Presidency Magistrate. Sessions Judge Additional Sessions Judge and assistant Sessions Judge, but that definition, as the Article itself shows, is for the purposes of Chapter VI of part VI of the Constitution of India. It can have no relevance for the purpose of interpreting the expression 'district Judge' as occurring in the Motor Vehicles Act. Referring to the definition of a 'district Judge' as provided in Section 3 (17) of the General Clauses Act (X of 1897), he observed that it would mean 'the Judge of a principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction'. The question, therefore, would be whether an Additional District Judge is the judge of a principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction. The answer would be that he is not, because under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1958, there would be four classes of Civil Courts --the Court of the District Judge, the court of the Additional District Judge, the Court of Civil Judge Class I and the court of Civil Judge Class II and under Section 7 of that 'act, the Principal Civil court of Original Jurisdiction is the Court of the District Judge. Therefore. Naik J. thought that the Additional District Judge could never be considered to be the principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction. We propose to deal with these various reasons presently.