KAVERI ROY Vs. BHAGMAT TUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed on 26th July, 2004 and thereafter certain defects were noticed by the department. Out of five defects No. 2 to 5 have since been ignored and only defect No. 1 which relates to non-supply of the particulars of the parties and detailed address in the certified copy of the judgment/award appealed against, has been kept for consideration today.

(2.) MR . Ananda Sen, learned Advocate pointed out that the practice of drawing up of a decree after passing of the Award by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal in terms of Section 168 of the Act was discontinued pursuant to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Hariman Mahto and Ors., 2003 (1) JCR 573 (Jhr). wherein it was observed that the provisions of Section 168 of the aforesaid Act merely require the making of an Award, but that the Tribunal after passing of a judgment, had also taken the burden of drawing up and preparing a formal Award on the basis of the judgment. The Division Bench was of the view that there was no such requirement in the 1988, Act and that the Award pronounced was, in fact, in the nature of a judgment and did not require the drawing up of an additional formal Award on the basis of the judgment as delivered. Mr. Sen submitted that in view of the said decision, the practice of drawing up of a formal award by the learned Tribunal was discontinued and the judgment as delivered was treated to be an Award within the meaning of Section 168 of the 1988, Act.

(3.) WE , therefore, in modification of the directions contained in the said judgment in the case of Hiraman Mahto and others (supra), direct that henceforth judgments should contain the details of the parties and their addresses and also the valuation and costs awarded to the parties as also the sufficiency of the Court-fees paid thereon. Since, in this case details of the parties have been indicated in the cause title to the memorandum of appeal itself, the objection as pointed out as "defect No. 1" may be ignored.