MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE JULLUNDUR CITY Vs. SHRI ROMESH SAGGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939), as subsequently amended by Act 100 of 1956, against an award, dated March 19, 1963, for Rs. 6,750. 46 P. and costs, it was argued on behalf of the judgment-debtor appellant before Gurdev Singh, J. , that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hold that Raghbir Singh, the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was guilty of any rash or negligent act as Raghbir Singh had already been acquitted by this Court on August 14, 1961 (in Criminal Revision No. 312 of 1961)of the charge of rashness or negligence in respect of the same accident which gave rise to the claim under Section 110-A of the Act. In view of the conflict of authority on the abovesaid point, and the prima facie inclination of the learned judge not to agree with the law laid down by Mahajan, J. in Sadhu Singh v. Punjab roadways, Ambala City, 1968-70 Pun. L. R. 39 = (AIR 1968 Punj. 466), and in view of the further fact that this question is likely to arise in a large number of cases, the learned Single Judge has referred the following question for decision by a Division Bench:-

(2.) SECTIONS 110 to 110-F and Section 111-A were added to the principal Act of 1939 by the various provisions contained in the amending Act 100 of 1956. Section 110 authorises the State Government to constitute one or more Motor accidents Claims Tribunals for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles. Section 110-A states that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified above may be made by the person who has sustained the injury or by the legal representatives of the deceased where death has resulted from the accident. Section 110-B provides that the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim and may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just. Section 110-C then provides:-

(3.) IN exercise of the powers conferred by Section 111-A, the Punjab Government has framed the Punjab Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1964, which were published in the Home Transport Department of the Punjab Government vide notification No. GSR-4/ca4/39/s. III A/65, dated January 5, 1965. Rule 3 provides that every application for payment of compensation made under Section 110-A shall be in the form appended to those rules. There are as many as 24 columns in the prescribed form. But no information regarding any criminal prosecution or a judgment of any criminal Court or the result of a criminal prosecution is required to be given in the prescribed form. Column 22 headed; "any other information that may be necessary or helpful in the disposal of the claim" but this does not by itself indicate that the State Government while prescribing a form envisaged the furnishing of information regarding the result of any criminal prosecution to the tribunal, Rule 19 states that the Claims Tribunal, in passing orders shall record concisely in a judgment the findings on each of the issues framed and the reasons for such findings and make an award specifying the amount of compensation to be paid by the insurer and also the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid. Rule 20 states that the provisions of Order 5, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30, order 9, Order 13, Rules 3 to 10, Order 16, Rules 2 to 21, Order 17 and Order 23, rules 1 to 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure shall, so far as may be apply to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. No other rule is relevant for answering the question which has been referred to us. From a survey of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, it is clear that the Act as well as the Rules are absolutely silent on the question of the applicability of any particular rules of evidence.