MANISH KUMAR MISHRA Vs. BADRI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dtd. 31/1/2014, while hearing all these appeals, it was noted by the learned Single Judge that though orders have been passed on 5/9/2013/6/9/2013 directing that the writ petition be treated as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, reference has been made to three orders passed by learned Single Judges of this Court in the cases of Vikram Singh Verma Versus Kashmiri Devi & Others, decided on 8/9/1999 [2000(2)WLC 314], Mangla Jat Versus Raju, decided on 1/2/2001 [2001(1)WLC 698] and Bharat Lal Versus Sriom and Others (S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 474 of 1998, decided on 24/11/2000, 2001(4)WLC498), wherein, it has been consistently held that against an order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC is not maintainable. Learned Single Judge also referred the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Huligemma & Others, decided on 2/3/2005 [2005 (2) TAC 933], wherein also similar view has been taken as has been held consistently in the judgments of the aforesaid cases. Therefore, the case has been referred to Larger Bench to consider the issue regarding maintainability of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. These appeals have been preferred against the order dtd. 29/1/2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejecting an application for setting aside ex parte award.

(2.) A Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is governed and regulated by the provisions contained in the Act as also the provisions contained in rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred under the Act, known as The Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1990). Rule 10.27 and 10.28 provide for limited applicability of the provisions contained in the Civil Procedure Code insofar as the rules before the Tribunal are concerned. The aforesaid two Rules are reproduced below:-

(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that though some of the provisions including provision contained in Order 9 of CPC has been made applicable in proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act, provisions contained in Order 43 CPC have not been specifically made applicable.