Motor Accident Tribunal Possesses All Trappings Of Court Though Not Bound By Stringent Procedures Of CPC & Evidence Act: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that a Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 with its ability to summon and examine witnesses, cross-examine them, and order the disclosure of documents, possesses all the trappings of a court though not bound by the stringent procedures outlined in the Civil Procedure Code and Evidence Act.

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani made these observations while hearing an appeal directed against an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowing a claim petition, without summoning few of the witnesses mentioned by the Insurance company.

The appellant-Insurance Company challenged the award arguing that the Tribunal failed to consider two applications filed by them during the proceedings. The first application, filed under Section 170 of the Act, alleging collusion between the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, posing a risk to the appellant's interests. The second application sought permission to deposit expenses for summoning three witnesses.

Justice Wani noted that the Tribunal upon framing the issues had directed the counsel for the parties to file list of witnesses, whereafter the claimants led their evidence and consequently their evidence came to be closed. It had then directed the respondents in the claim petition to lead evidence and accordingly, the appellant -Insurance Company filed an application requesting permission to deposit diet expenses for summoning three witnesses. However, the Tribunal only issued notice to one witness and no notice was issued to the other two witnesses.

It is in this backdrop that the High Court observed,

"The Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been consistently held by the Courts to be a Judicial Authority created by the Act with an inherent judicial power to determine the disputes between the parties fairly and objectively while possessing the powers to summon and examine the witnesses, cross examine them as also to order discovery, admission or denial of documents. The Tribunal under the Act has been held to have trappings of a Court and though it is not enjoined by law to observe all rules and the procedure contained in the Civil Procedure Code and in the Evidence Act, yet it has to decide the matters before it fairly and objectively."

It held that once the Tribunal had summoned one witness named in the application filed by the respondent-Insurance Company/appellant, there was no reason for it not to summon the other two witnesses mentioned in the application.

".. The Tribunal ought not have closed the evidence of the respondent/Insurance Company, once it had allowed the application of the respondent-Insurance Company/appellant herein for summoning of three witnesses partly upon summoning the Record Keeper of the office of Regional Transport Office, Jammu. The Tribunal, seemingly, has proceeded in the matter, in so far as the said application is concerned illegally and with material irregularity".

Not considering the application filed by the respondent Insurance Company appellant under Section 170 of the Act is a gross patent error on the part of the Tribunal rendering the same not legally tenable, the bench underscored.

The matter was thus remanded back to the Tribunal.

Case Title: United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Ashok Kumari and ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 139

Click Here To Read/Download Judgement