NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. MEGLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 21.9.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for brevity 'The Tribunal') in MACT Case No. 22411 of 23.4.99/17.8.99, dismissing the application of the petitioner insurance company for sending the interrogatories for examination of the Clerk of Licensing Authority, Ettawa through District Judge, Ettawa (U.P.).

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 5.4.99 a road accident took place in which one Japani aged about 14 years was killed by truck No. CHIS. 7478 which was insured with the petitioner-company. The claimants who are the mother and father of Japani, filed an application for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3 lacs from the owner driver and Insurance Company of the truck (for brevity petitioner-company). During the pendency of the claim petition, the petitioner-company moved an application alleging that the driver licence issued to the driver of the offending truck was issued for driving motor cycle and light motor vehicle, nor for heavy motor vehicle. It was alleged that driving licence No. 1690/E/95 dated 15.4.1995 issued by R.T.O. Ettawa was valid from 15.4.1995 to 10.7.2014 which was in the name of the respondent- driver Rajesh Kumar alias Brajesh Kumar who was the driver of the offending truck when the accident took place on 5.4.1999. In order to examine the Clerk of the Licensing Authority, Ettawa, interrogatories were prepared and an application was moved under Order 11, Rules 1 to 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which a prayer was made that the interrogatories be sent for examination of the concerned Clerk of the Licensing Authority, Ettawa through the learned District Judge, Ettawa (U.P.). The application has been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that under Rule 232 of the Chandigarh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990 (for brevity 'the Rules') the provisions of Order 11, Rules 1 to 4 have not been made available in such like matters. On that basis, the learned Tribunal, dismissed the application by recording the following order :-

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is liable to be dismissed because the Tribunal is a creation of a statute and cannot assume inherent jurisdiction which could be exercised by the civil Courts. The Tribunal derives its status and character from the statute. Once Rule 232 does not confer any power on the Tribunal to pass an order under Order 11, Rules 1 to 4 then even if such an order is passed by the Tribunal, it would be without jurisdiction. If the petitioner-company has any suspicion about the genuineness of the driving licence, it may adopt any other method to prove that the driving licence issued to Rajesh Kumar alias Brajesh Kumar, the driver of the offending truck was only in respect of motorcycle and light motor vehicle. The revision is thus liable be dismissed.