1

A PROJECT ON:
MOTOR VEHICLES CLAIMS TRIBUNALS: JURISDICTION AND
POWERS
SUBMITTED TO:
DR. DEEPAK DAS
(Faculty of LAW OF INSURANCE)

SUBMITTED BY:
VIVEK GURNANI
Roll No.-173
Semester-VIII

DATE OF SUBMISSION:
April 4, 2016

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR (C.G.)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to take this opportunity to express my deep sense of gratitude towards my course
teacher, Dr. Deepak Das for giving me constant guidance and encouragement throughout the
course of the project.
I would also like to thank the University for providing me the Internet and library facilities,
which were indispensable for getting relevant content on the subject, as well as subscriptions to
online databases, and journals, which were instrumental in writing relevant text.
Special thanks goes out to my seniors who have been relentless in their help and supporting
providing any material whenever required and my colleagues, who always stood by me,
irrespective of the decisions taken by me. Without their support this project would not have seen
the light of the day.

VIVEK GURNANI
B.A. LL.B. (HONS.)
HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,
RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

Page No.

1. Introduction..3
2. Statutory Provision(Claims Tribunal).......4
3. MACT- Two Dimensional Jurisdiction....6
4. Qualifications of Appointment of Members of Claims Tribunals....7
5. Pecuniary Jurisdiction,..7
6. Status of Tribunal,,8
7. Jurisdiction of Claims Tribunals,..9
8. Exclusive Jurisdiction-Bar of Civil Courts..10
9. Claimant to Choose Jurisdiction...9
10. No Limitation to file Claim..9
11. No Jurisdiction- when death occurred due to heart attack...10
12. BAR ON JURISDICTION OF CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM 11
13. Claimant to Choose Place of Jurisdiction.12
14. Jurisdiction- when collision between train and motor vehicle.13
15. Tribunal jurisdiction to set aside Award..14
16. Jurisdiction to entertain claim by Indigent person...15
17. Procedure and Powers of Claims Tribunal...17
18. Conclusion....18
19. Bibilography.....19

MOTOR VEHICLES CLAIMS TRIBUNALS

JURISDICTION AND POWERS

INTRODUCTION
Motor Vehicles Tribunals are the tribunals empowered by State Government to adjudicate upon
claims for compensation arising out of motor vehicles accidents, resulting death or bodily injury
to persons or damages to any property of third parties. Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 deals with the constitution of Claims Tribunal, Application of Claims and award of
compensation etc. This chapter also deals with procedure followed by tribunals in awarding
claim and awarding of interest and compensatory costs in some cases and appeals against the
orders of claims tribunal.

Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 consisting of Sec 165 to 175 contains
provisions relating to Claims Tribunals. Sec 165 dealing with the establishment of
Claims Tribunals. Sec 165 to sec 175 corresponds to sec 110 to 110- F of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939.

Claims tribunals can adjudicate any claim for compensation in respect of accidents. In
view of express wordings of sec 165 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Claims Tribunals
cannot be constituted unless the notification is published.

The claims tribunal is an independent authority to discharge such functions which are
exclusively given to its jurisdiction by various provisions of the Motor vehicles Act. The
Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain a claim even if the accident to a motor
vehicles is caused by anything other than a motor vehicles.

Claims tribunals under Motor vehicles Act has jurisdiction to decide on claims by third
parties only. Insurer of vehicle cannot be treated as third party .Power of tribunal is
restricted to deciding claim regarding direct damages to property and does not extent to
consequential primary loss suffered due to accident..The High court sits as a court of
appeal against award passed by the Claims tribunal, though as a tribunal, pure and simple

,the Claims tribunal like any other Tribunal at work in the state, shall be subject to the
general power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories
in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
STATUTORY PROVISION
SEC 165 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 establishes MOTOR VEHICLES CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL (MACT)
Sec 165 dealing with the establishment of claims tribunals and also provides for qualification and
appointment of members of tribunals. According to this sec state government shall notify to
establish the claims tribunal, which is mandatory in nature. Claims tribunals establishes for the
adjudication upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or
bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a
third party.1 Explanation to this sec specifies that whatever claims for compensation in respect of
accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor
vehicles includes claims for compensation under section 140 and sec 163A also.
Sec 165. Claims Tribunals
1 .A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for
such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for
compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising
out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both.
Explanation.For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression claims for
compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising
out of the use of motor vehicles includes claims for compensation under section 140 and section
163A. 2

1 The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 165 (1)

2 Ibid., Explanation to Section 165 (1)

2 .A Claims Tribunal shall consist of such number of members as the State Government may
think fit to appoint and where it consists of two or more members, one of them shall be
appointed as the Chairman thereof. 3
3. A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of a Claims Tribunal unless he
( a) is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court, or
(b) is, or has been a District Judge, or
(c) is qualified for appointment as a High Court Judge
[or as a District Judge]." 4
(4) Where two or more Claims Tribunals are constituted for any area, the State Government, May
by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business among them5.
In Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna6 it was held by the Supreme Court of India that the power of a
State Government to constitute Claims Tribunal is optional, and the State Government may not
constitute a Claims Tribunal for certain areas.
In Sushma Mehta v. Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd7 it was held by the court that
no tribunal can be constituted unless there has been firstly, a notification of the State Government
and secondly, such notification has been published in the official gazette of the state.
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER
A Claims Tribunal shall consist of such number of members as the State Government may think
fit to appoint and where it consists of two or more members, one of them shall be appointed as
the Chairman thereof. Appointment of a person as member of tribunal by name is not necessary
and appointment with reference to an office is sufficient. But, it does not mean that no
appointment by name can be made. If a person fulfils the qualification test for such appointment,
any person can be appointed to be a member of a tribunal by name. The usual practice has been
3 Ibid., Section 165 (2)
4 Ibid., Section 165 (3)
5 Ibid., Section 165 (4)
6 Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1248
7 Sushma Mehta v. Central Provinces Transport Services Ltd, AIR 1964 (MP) 133
(DB)

to designate as claims tribunal, the District Judge or Additional District Judge, provided the latter
is qualified to become a District Judge.
In Anirudh Prasad Ambasta v. State of Bihar 8 it was held that a District Judge or Additional
District Judge, when appointed as member of the tribunal would continue to exercise his original
jurisdiction as a member of the State Judicial Service.

APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER BY NAME NOT NECESSARY

Delhi High Court in New Asiatic Transport (P) Co. Ltd. v. Manohar Lal 9 held that
appointment of a person as Member of Tribunal by name is not necessary and appointment with
reference to an office is sufficient. However, it does not follow that no appointment by name can
ever be made. If a person fulfils the qualification test for such appointment, any person can be
appointed to be a Member of a Tribunal by name. The usual practice has been to designate as
Claims Tribunal, the District Judge or Additional District Judge, provided the latter is qualified to
become a District Judge. A District Judge or Additional District Judge, when appointed as
Member of the Tribunal would continue to exercise his original jurisdiction as a Member of the
State Judicial Service10 . However, the person so appointed shall function not virtually as court,
but purely as persona designate11.
MACT: TWO DIMENSIONAL JURISDICTIONS
Sec 165 has empowered the claims tribunals to adjudicate upon claims for compensation
i.

For death or bodily injury to ; and

ii.

For damage to property of a third party.

It follows that whereas a claim for damage to property cannot be made under sec 140 or under
sec 165 , a claim application under Sec 166 can be made both for death or bodily injury and for
damage to property in one and the same proceeding , provided the same accident has given rise
to a cause of action on death or bodily injury as also for damage to property . Although the
claims tribunal has unlimited jurisdiction in respect of a claim , whether for death or bodily
8 Anirudh Prasad Ambasta v. State of Bihar, AIR 1990 (Pat.) 49
9 New Asiatic Transport (P) Co. Ltd. v. Manohar Lal, (1966) 68 Punj. LR (Del.) 51.
10 Anirudh Prasad Ambasta v. State of Bihar, AIR 1990 ACJ 238 (Pat.) FB
11 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Molia Devi, 1969 ACJ 164 (MP) DB

injury or for damages to property, yet the Act has put a ceiling on the liability of the insurer in
claims for damages to property and in certain cases of death or bodily injury.
Suo motu jurisdiction to take cognizance of claims for compensation does not extend to
cases of damages to property.
Qualifications for appointment as Member of CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
Sub sec (3) of sec 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes the qualification and eligibility to
appointment of a person as a Claims Tribunal, stating that the appointee:
(a) is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court, or
(b) is, or has been a District Judge, or
(c) is qualified for appointment as a High Court Judge or as a District Judge

PECUNIARY JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL: Unlimited Jurisdiction

Significance of Explanation to sec 165: The pecuniary jurisdiction of the claim tribunal has a
double implication, that is, compensation in case of death or bodily injury and in respect of
damage caused to any property. Sec 165 of the act of 1988 empowers the tribunal to award
tribunal to award compensation not only for death and bodily injury but also for damage to
property. As regards the former, there are three different provisions in the motor vehicles act,
1988 namely -

a. Compensation in certain cases on the principles of no fault, as provided in sec 140 of the
Act. Sec 140 provides for a fixed some, which can neither be less nor more, that 50,000 /in case of death and Rs. 25000/- in case of injury amounting to permanent disablement,
fault or negligence being out of consideration.

b. Compensation on structured formula basis, under sec 163-A of the Act. Sec 163-A also
provides for a fixed amount of compensation, but the amount has to be picked out from
various items of Second schedule which has prescribed the amount with reference to age,
income of the deceased.

c. Compensation on structured formula basis, under sec 163-A of the Act. Sec 163-A also
provides for a fixed amount of compensation, but the amount has to be picked out from
various items of Second schedule which has prescribed the amount with reference to age,
income of the deceased.

d. Compensation which appears to the claims tribunals to be just, under sec 168 of the Act.
this sec mandates the tribunal to determine the amount of compensation which appears
it to be just, and there is no pecuniary limit up to which it can be extended, though it can
even be nil depending upon whether the claimant has proved or failed to prove his case
on merits.

e. In the category of claims under (a) above , that is compensation on principle of no fault,
compensation can be awarded either in cases of death or in cases of permanent
disablement of any person , and in either case , the fixed and different amounts have been
fixed respectively for death and permanent disablement. The relevant provisions are sub
sec (1) and (2) of sec 140.12
STATUS OF TRIBUNAL:
.Claims Tribunals a substitute of court for purposes of compensation claims
From a study into the provisions of sec 110 to 110 F of The Motor vehicles act ,1939,which are
now replaced by sections 165 to 175 of Motor Vehicles 1988, it would be clear that the only
change that has been introduced in matters of adjudication of claims for compensation by the
said amended provisions of the 1939 Act, and as now substituted by in the Act of 1988, is that
the court are replaced by the Claims Tribunals and whenever and wherever set up for the purpose
in any area by notification made by the state government for adjudication of claim for
compensation following a summary procedure with right of appeal to the high court. Although
sec 96(1) of the 1939 Act had not been amended, yet whenever and wherever a Claim Tribunal is
set up for any area, the court must be interpreted to mean a Claims Tribunal.

12 Dr. R.G.Chaturvedi, Law of Motor Accident Claims and Compensation (2010)

p.537.

10

JURISDICTION OF CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

Jurisdiction in respect of claims in accidents prior to establishment of tribunal:
The existence of a claims tribunal on the date of accident is not a condition precedent for
entertaining a claim for compensation. A claim for compensation can be entertained by a
Tribunal even in respect of an accident which occurred at a time when there was no claims
tribunal for that area. In several cases by court held that tribunal can adjudicate where accident
occurred prior to establishment of tribunal. Some leading cases are as follows:
New india Assurance company Vs. Rukiyabai
FACTS_- A motor accident had taken place within the jurisdiction of the civil court at Nasik.
There was no claims tribunal on the date when the accident had occurred or on the date when the
suit for compensation was instituted in the Nasik court. After the institution of the suit , the
claims tribunal came to be established w.e.f 18.9.1959, but even then the tribunal , set up at
Nasik had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation in respects of accidents which
occurred at a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Nasik court.
Held- it was therefore , held that the notification , dated 7.8.1959, establishing a tribunal , at
Indore could not come in the way of the civil court at Nasik to proceed with the claim instituted
therein when no tribunal for that area was then in existence.
In , V.C.K Bus service Vs. H.B. SETHNA
In this case the Tribunal was constituted in March 1967. The claim was lodged before the
Tribunal in July 1967. It is the case of petitioners that a civil suit for compensation could be
lodged even after July 1967. The Act contains clear indications that for investigating claims
arising out of motor accidents, Claims Tribunals should have exclusive jurisdiction. A claim was
lodged before the tribunal in due course .There was some delay has been condoned under the
proviso to sub sec (3) of sec 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The tribunal held that it has
jurisdiction to entertain and try the claim.

Exclusive Jurisdiction of Tribunal : Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts

11

Sec 175 provides for bar of jurisdiction of civil courts. If the claims tribunals have
jurisdiction to adjudicate, then civil court jurisdiction will be expressly barred. Sec 175 as
follows.

Sec 175 of Motor Vehicles Act: Where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for
any area, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any
claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that
area, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the
Claims Tribunal in respect of the claim for compensation shall be granted by the Civil
Court.

If at the time of accident , a tribunal has been constituted eithera.

For the area where the accident occurred ,

b. For the area where he himself resides,

c. For the area where the defendant resides,
The bar of sec 175 shall be attracted, and the claimant shall be required to file his claim only
and exclusively before one or the other of the above mentioned claims tribunals and he will have
no option to file his claim in a civil court.
But leading case in this regard that in, Gurbax Singh v. Financial Commissioner
it was held by the Supreme Court that despite the bar on civil courts jurisdiction under a statute,
if the special tribunal or authority acts ultra vires or illegally, the civil court has power by virtue
of section 9 of the C.P.C.to interfere and set matters right. If the provisions of the statute have
not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the
fundamental principles of judicial procedure, the civil courts have jurisdiction to examine such
case..
In Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkataraman Deehsithulu13 it was held by the
apex court that the procedure before the tribunal is simple and not hidebound by intricate
procedure of pleadings and trial, admissibility of the evidence and proof of facts according to
law. Therefore, there is abundant flexibility in the discharge of the functions with greater
expedition and in expensiveness.
13 Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkataraman Deehsithulu, 1991 (5) JT
140

12

In Kishan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir14 it was held by the court that jurisdiction of
civil court is not barred where the impugned order, being in violation of mandatory provisions of
the statute is without jurisdiction and a nullity.
BAR ON JURISDICTION OF CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM
In Chairman Thiruvallurar Transport Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council

15

the

deceased was travelling in an omni bus which met with an accident while trying to avert a
bullock cart. It appears that when the bus driver was in process of overtaking the bullock cart,
the bullock got panicky whereupon the driver swerved the bus to left and ran in to branches of a
tree on the roadside resulting in damage to the vehicle, the window panes having been smashed.
As the vehicle suddenly swerved and the driver applied the brakes the deceased who was sitting
in the centre of the rear seat was thrown in the front and hit against the iron side bar, sustaining a
serious head injury. Subsequently he succumbed to the injury. The Consumer Protection Council,
Tamil Nadu on behalf of the legal representative of the deceased, lodged a complaint before the
National Commission under the 1986 Act claiming compensation. The appellant contested the
claim contending that the claimant i.e. the Council, had no locus standi to maintain the action
and in any case the National Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition since
exclusive jurisdiction was conferred by the 1988 Act on the Claims Tribunal constituted there
under. The National Commission contended the appellant, side stepped the question regarding
jurisdiction and without answering the same awarded Rs. 5.10 Lacs by way of compensation
with interest at 18% per annum with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. An appeal against the judgement was
preferred to the Supreme Court. The question that arose for consideration was whether the
National Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the claim application and award compensation
in respect of an accident involving death of the deceased caused by the use of Motor Vehicle.
The Supreme Court without going in to depth of awarding of compensation by National
Commission to the victim, only answer the question of law as to whether National Commission
can entertain such case held that National Commission has no jurisdiction whatsoever and was
14 5Kishan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1994) 4 SCC 422
15 Chairman Thiruvallurar Transport Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council,
AIR, 1995 SC 1384

13

entirely wrong in exercising jurisdiction and awarding compensation. However, in the facts and
circumstances of this case, the judgment pronounced by National Commission was reversed and
appellant were not entitled to recover the compensation money already paid to the victim under
the orders of National Commission. Hence, claims for compensation arising out of use of motor
vehicles cannot be adjudicated by any of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums contemplated
and created under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint in the case of motor accident
cannot be said to be in relation to any service hired or availed of by the consumer because the
injury sustained by the consumer has nothing to do with the service provided or availed of by
him if the injury is the direct result of the accident
Claimant to Choose Place of Jurisdiction :
In the Act of 1988 the corresponding provisions are Sections 165 and175. Under S. 110 (2) of
1939 Act the Tribunal within whose territorial jurisdiction the accident occurred alone was
competent to entertain the claim. This position was retained in S. 166 (2) of 1988 Act as
originally enacted.
Amendment Act 54 of 1994 however added two more forum viz (1) the Tribunal within whose
local limits the claimant resided or carried on business, and (2) the Tribunal within whose local
limits the defendant resided. With this amendment the claimant now has the option to choose one
out of the three forums.
Sec 166(1) of Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal,1988 provides application for compensation and
sub sec (2) of sec 166 intent that making of claim application under section 166(1) has been left
totally at the option of the claimant, either to the claims tribunal having jurisdiction over the area
where the accident took place, or to such tribunal within local limits of whose jurisdiction the
claimant resides or carries on business or within local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant
resides.
In Kusum Devi v. Dungaram16 it was held that in view of the word or which separates three
clauses, the claimant can choose either of the three options and as per legislative intent, there are
three options implied, whereby he has been given a right to pick one of three places for
exercising his option. In Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd17 in this case injured, a
16 Kusum Devi v. Dungaram, 2008 ACJ 1709 (Raj.)
17 Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, 2009 ACJ 564

14

migrant labourer working in district Nanital, sustained injuries in collision between a bus and
truck at a place in Uttar Pradesh. It was held by the Supreme Court of India that Tribunal of
Nanital has jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
.
No Limitation : There is no limitation for instituting a claim for compensation before the
Claims Tribunal: After the omission of sub sec (3) of sec 166 i.e Sub.-sec 3 omitted by Act 53
of 1994, sec. 53 (w .e. f. 14-11-1994). , that is the limitation clause, from sec 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988. There being no limitation for instituting a claim for compensation before the
claims tribunal, it is of no consequence whether the claims tribunal was established in the area
before or after occurrence of the accident.
In case there is no claims tribunal established for the area where the accident occurred, the
claimant would have a number of options, that is

If there is no claims tribunal for the area where the accident occurred, but there is a
claims tribunal for the area where he himself resides, he can file his claim in the tribunal
established for that area where he resides.

He can wait for establishment of the tribunal and file his claim when the tribunal comes
to established in the concerned area, and limitation clause having been deleted, the claim
will have to entertain by the tribunal as and when established, in the area.

He can institute a suit in a civil court having jurisdiction for the area in which the
accident occurred subject, of course, to the law of limitation, and if thereafter a claims
tribunal has been established for that area, he can have his claim transferred to the claims
tribunal by moving the high court for such transfer under sec 24 of CPC or under Art. 227
of the constitution, or he can withdraw his suit with permission to file instead a claim
before the claims tribunal.

When Death Occurred Due To Heart Attack : No Jurisdiction ;

15

When the death occurred due to heart attack then claims tribunals have no jurisdiction to
entertain the claim petition. Tribunal are only concern with accident arising out with motor
vehicles..
National Insurance s. Ltd v. Chandra Prava Barman Co
In this case the insurer argued that admittedly the father of the claimant died on account of heart
attack and not due to vehicular accident, and that Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal can award
compensation only in connection with the liability of the insurer on the insured which arises out
of vehicular accident and not for any remote cause. Holding this statement as well merited the
High Court held that the claim for death of the father might or could have been taken up under
Law of Torts and not by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which has got limited jurisdiction to
deal with claims arising out of accident. Such a claim which has been allowed by the tribunal
could only be within the competence of the civil court and not within the competence of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal..

Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Where Collision Between Trains And Motor Vehicle Occurred :
When there is collision between trains and motors vehicles and if it is proved by claimant that
accident arose out of use of motor vehicle, then tribunals have jurisdiction to entertain claim
application..
In,

Union of India v. Bhagwati Prasad 18

There was collision between a passenger train and a taxi. The track was lying open even at time
of passing of the train. Some of the inmates of the taxi died and others sustained injury. It was
held that once it is established that the accident arose out of use of motor vehicle, the tribunals
jurisdiction cannot be said to be ousted on a finding that it was negligence of the other joint
tortfeasor and not negligence of the motor driver.
In Amritlal v. Union of India19
where the truck driver was warned by inmates of truck about approaching railway engine and
there was consequent collision between truck and the engine on unmanned railway level crossing
and resultant death of some of the passengers in the truck and injuries to other inmates of truck,
18 Union of India v. Satish Kumar Patel, AIR 2001 MP 41
19 Amritlal v.Union of India, 2004 ACJ 1868 (Raj.)

16

award of compensation by the tribunal was held justified and the railways was held not liable
since it is no duty of railways to man all level crossings.
In Union of India v. Bhagwati Prasad 20
there was collision between a passenger train and a taxi. The track was lying open even at time of
passing of the train. Some of the inmates of the taxi died and others sustained injury. It was held
that once it is established that the accident arose out of use of motor vehicle, the tribunals
jurisdiction cannot be said to be ousted on a finding that it was negligence of the other joint
tortfeasor and not negligence of the motor driver.
Tribunals Jurisdiction to Set Aside when Award Procured by Fraud :
If tribunals found that order obtained by fraud and party misled the court then court have
inherent jurisdiction to set aside the award. It is most common practice in the court that parties
committing fraud and obtain the compensation.
In, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. R. Mani
In this case Court observes that fraud affects the regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of
the court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of court, the courts have been held to have
inherent powers to set aside an order obtained by fraud practiced upon the court. Similarly,
where the court is misled by a party or the court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a
party, the court has the inherent jurisdiction to recall its order. It was held that where an award
had been obtained on basis of a fabricated policy, the commissioner of workmens compensation,
was empowered to reopen the case if allegation of fraud was sustainable.
In ,Ramdev Singh Vs. Chudasma Hansrajbhai V Kodala It was held by the High Court that
section 163A has specially provided for loss to the estate of the deceased to a given extent
without any proof where compensation on head of loss of estate cannot be awarded without
proof under section 166. Claim application can be filed under Section 163A for claim to be
determined on structural formula basis provided in Schedule-II. Schedule-II has been adjudged
as suffering from severe mistakes and the Supreme Court has held that total reliance cannot be
placed on this schedule. Further the Schedule do not provide any computation chart for the
persons having more than Rs.40,000/- annual income. Claim petition can also be filed under

20 Union of India v. Bhagwati Prasad, AIR 2002 SC 1301.

17

Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act pleading negligence where the claim shall be assessed by the
Judge not on the basis of structural formula but on the basis of evidence led.
Jurisdiction to Entertain Claim by Indigent Person
The tribunal has trapping of civil court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of
enforcing attendance of witnesses and compelling the discovery and production of documents
and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed, as section 169(2) of the
Motor vehicle Act, 1988 has stated. There is no direct reference of Order 33 of Civil Procedure
Code which deals with suits by or on behalf of indigent persons.
Gulab Singh Meruji v. Jayantilal Shankarlal Brahmin
In this case the prayer was made for filling the appeal as indigent person. The appellant was
permitted to file the claim before the tribunal as indigent person, but the claim was dismissed.
Permitting the appeal to be filed as indigent person the court observed that in the legal aid
programmes, whatever amount is paid as legal assistance to the litigant that is not repayable by
the litigant. In the case where a person comes up with a prayer that he may be permitted to file
appeal as an indigent person by permitting him to file appeal as indigent person, payment of
court fee is only being deferred. So this court, while dealing with such applications, should be
more liberal which will advance the cause of justice to poor persons.
Procedure and Powers of Claims Tribunal:
Section 169 of the Act lays down the procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunal in setting
claims compensation. In holding any enquiry under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may, follow summary procedure as it thinks
fit. Proceedings under MV ACT, 1988 are summary in nature, they do not require strict
compliance with the rules of evidence and pleadings. The proceedings before the Claims
Tribunal clearly be similar to to the proceedings in a civil court and claims tribunals for all
intents and purposes discharges the same functions and duties in the same manner as a court of
law is expected to do so.
The powers of the Claims tribunal According to sub sec (2) of sec 169 The claims tribunal
shall have all the powers of a civil court for the for purpose of taking evidence on oath and of
enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of

18

documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the claims
tribunals shall be deemed to be a civil court for all the purposes of sec 195 and chapter XXVI the
Cr .pc, 1973..

Tribunals have the power of review is an attribute of the civil court , and the basic
provisions for exercise of power of review are provided in sec 114 read with order 47,
rule 1 of the CPC , and whenever a a tribunal is expressly vested with or impliedly
conceded to have such power , these provisions are borrowed from the CPC to tribunal
in question with power to review its own decisions.

Tribunals have all the powers provided in sec 195 and Chapter XXVI of Cr.pc which is
commencement of proceedings before magistrates.

The Claims Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claim for
compensation, choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of any
matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry.
Claims tribunal is a civil court for purpose of sec 115 CPC, 1908 which provides for
REVISION. Therefore orders passed by tribunals can be revised by high court.

The claims tribunal shall have all the powers of a civil court for the purpose of taking
evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witness and all compelling the
discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes
as may be prescribed.

The tribunals have all the powers to enforce its award, for the purpose of enforcement of its
award; tribunal shall have all the powers of a civil court in the execution of decree under the
CPC ORDER 21 as if the award were a decree for payment of money passed.

The tribunal may implead insurer in certain cases if satisfied that where there is collusion
between the person making the claim is made or the person against whom the claim is
made has failed to contest the claim.

In KRISHNA GOPAL Vs. DATTATRAYA It was held that, the claims tribunal is a court of
judicature, it must follow that under sec 115 of CPC, which is general in terms, the high court is
entitled to revise the orders of that court. Sec 3 of the CPC clearly lays down that all courts

19

constituted within a civil district are subordinate to the district court and are also subordinate to
the high court. Both the conditions are under sec 115 of CPC are thus satisfied. There is ,
therefore , no escape from the conclusion that the orders passed by the claims tribunal can be
revised under sec 115 of CPC.
Raghbir Singh vs. Savita SharmaIn this case the insurer sought to adduce secondary evidence
to establish that driving of offending vehicles was fake and record of District Transport Office
had been destroyed. It was held that when it is shown that document has been destroyed,
evidence sought to be led by insurer could not be refused, and even otherwise the Tribunal has to
follow only a summary procedure for making award and strict rules laid down in the Evidence
Act.
CONCLUSION:
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal MACT deals with matters related
to compensation of motor accidents victims or their next of kin .The Tribunal
deal with claims relating to loss of life/property and injury cases resulting
from Motor Accidents.
MACT Courts are presided over by Judicial Officers from the State Higher
Judicial Service. Now these Courts are under direct supervision of the Honble
High Court of the respective state
According to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the jurisdiction of MACT is limited in terms of
provisions of the Act. But, through judicial interpretations MACT jurisdiction is now become
very broad in nature, its not limited to jurisdiction where accident arising out of motor vehicle.
Its good for society who is not able to approach Claims Tribunals. But, what will be the effect
when claimant not able to find the right forum to claim? MACT Jurisdiction to entertain claim
by Indigent person is also seems to vague and ambiguous, it should be implemented through
statutory provisions. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with claims on accident arising out of motor
vehicles which result to death and permanent disability, but the question arises that is Claims
Tribunals deals properly to give relief to the claimants? Is procedure of MACT is speedy? On
the other hand, in the present scenario, lots of award are obtained by fraud and Claims Tribunals

20

has power to set aside , but it doesnt seems to be in the grounds of procedure. What are the
remedies to the insurance companies and owner of motor vehicles when award obtained by
fraud? These aspects should be considered by Claims Tribunal., and proper implementation of
law and procedure should be followed by MACT to give relief to the claimant.

21

BIBLOGRAPHY:
. N VIJAYARAGHAVAN , Motor Vehicles Laws ,2013 VOLUME 2 (14, LEXIS NEXIS
BUTTERWORTH)

Dr. R.G.CHATURVEDI, Laws of Motor Accident Claims and Compensation,2005,

Bharat Law Publications

Avtar Singh, Law of Insurance 2008, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow.

M N Srinivasan, Principles of Insurance Law, 8 Edition 2006, Wadhwa & Company

th

Nagpur.