Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Braz Dias, filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Margao, which rejected his application for extension of time to file a written statement in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner was a respondent in the claim petition filed by respondent no.1, Anthony Mascarenhas, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal erroneously applied Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which prescribes a 30-day time limit for filing written statements, whereas Rule 300 of the Goa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991 does not include Order 8 Rule 1, and the written statement is governed by Rule 292 of the said Rules. The petitioner contended that due to a misunderstanding and a stay on the claim petition proceedings, the written statement could not be filed earlier, and evidence had not yet commenced. The respondents supported the impugned order, with respondent no.3 seeking deletion from the claim petition. The High Court held that Order 8 Rule 1 CPC is indeed not applicable to claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, as Rule 300 of the Goa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991 does not incorporate it. The court found that the Tribunal's rejection of the extension application was based on an erroneous assumption. Considering that the claim petition was stayed and evidence had not started, the court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Tribunal to permit the petitioner to file his written statement within four weeks, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000 to the claimant.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Written Statement - Applicability of CPC - Order 8 Rule 1 CPC not applicable to claim petitions under Motor Vehicles Act - The court held that Rule 300 of the Goa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991 does not include Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, and the written statement is to be filed in accordance with Rule 292 of the said Rules. The Tribunal's rejection of extension of time based on Order 8 Rule 1 was erroneous. (Paras 5-7) B) Motor Vehicles Act - Extension of Time - Discretion of Tribunal - The court held that the Tribunal has discretion to extend time for filing written statement, and in the facts of the case, where the claim petition was stayed and evidence had not commenced, the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to file written statement. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is applicable to claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in rejecting the application for extension of time to file written statement.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and directed the Tribunal to permit the petitioner to file his written statement within four weeks from the date of the order, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000 to the claimant.
Law Points
- Order 8 Rule 1 CPC not applicable to claim petitions under Motor Vehicles Act
- Rule 292 of Goa Motor Vehicles Rules 1991 governs filing of written statement
- Tribunal has discretion to extend time for filing written statement
