Case Note & Summary
The appellant, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., filed an appeal against an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pune, dated 5th July 2004, which rejected its application for setting aside an ex-parte award dated 30th June 2003 and for restoration of the claim petition. The original award was passed on a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company had been set ex-parte in the claim proceedings. It filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Section 151 CPC to set aside the ex-parte award. The Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is not applicable to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. The insurance company appealed to the High Court. The legal issue was whether an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is maintainable before a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The appellant argued that the Tribunal has inherent powers to set aside an ex-parte award. The respondents supported the Tribunal's order. The Court analyzed the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly Section 169 which deals with the procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunal. It noted that Section 169(1) provides that the Tribunal shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed by the State Government, and in the absence of such procedure, the Tribunal may follow the summary procedure. The Court referred to the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, specifically Rule 211, which empowers the Tribunal to review its own orders in certain circumstances. The Court held that the CPC is not applicable to the Claims Tribunal except to the extent specifically provided. Since Order 9 Rule 13 is not made applicable, an application under that provision is not maintainable. The Court also held that the Tribunal does not have inherent powers under Section 151 CPC as that section applies only to civil courts. However, the Court observed that the Tribunal may have powers under Rule 211 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules to review its order, but that was not invoked. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's order.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Claims Tribunal - Applicability of CPC - Order 9 Rule 13 - The issue was whether an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable before a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Court held that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable to the Claims Tribunal except to the extent provided under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder. Since Order 9 Rule 13 is not specifically made applicable, such an application is not maintainable. (Paras 1-5) B) Motor Vehicles Act - Claims Tribunal - Inherent Powers - Setting aside ex-parte award - The Court considered whether the Tribunal has inherent powers to set aside an ex-parte award. It held that the Tribunal does not have inherent powers akin to a civil court under Section 151 CPC, as the Tribunal is a creature of statute and its powers are limited to those conferred by the Act and Rules. However, the Tribunal may have powers under Rule 211 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to review its own order in certain circumstances, but not to set aside an ex-parte award on grounds similar to Order 9 Rule 13. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable before a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pune dated 5th July 2004 rejecting the application for setting aside the ex-parte award is upheld.
Law Points
- Order 9 Rule 13 CPC not applicable to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
- Section 169 Motor Vehicles Act 1988
- Rule 211 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules 1989
- inherent powers of Tribunal
- ex-parte award
- setting aside ex-parte decree
