Heard Sri Ashish Jaiswal, learned Counsel holding brief of Sri Surendra Pal Singh, learned Counsel for the revisionist. Learned Standing Counsel Shri Adnan Ahmad and Ajay Shukla took due interest and Shri R.C. Sharma, learned Counsel also assisted the Court.
The present revision has been filed against an order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on a misc. application. This Court has already held in the case of Virendra Yadav versus Ramesh and another rendered in Civil Revision No. 120 of 2016 that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked against the orders passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on misc. applications before deciding the claim petition finally.
The application on which the impugned order has been passed can be said to be an application filed under Order XVI Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Order XVI Rule 6 C.P.C. by virtue of Rule 221 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 is applicable in respect of the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. For ready reference Order XVI Rule 6 C.P.C. is extracted below:-
"6. Summons to produce document. - Any person may be summoned to produce a document, without being summoned to give evidence, and any person summoned merely to produce a document shall be deemed to have complied with the summons if he causes such document to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same."
Order XVI Rule 6 C.P.C. Clearly empowers and provides for summoning of documents which may be necessary for the adjudication of claims filed before the claim Tribunal.
The Full Bench judgement of this Court in the case reported in 2015 (33) LCD Page 2295 (United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Smt. Shashi Prabha Sharma & Others) has already held that the right of defence available to insurer under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is fully available once the insurer is called upon by the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to contest the claim. In the instant case, the insurance company has raised a doubt about the original driving licence of the driver which was possessed by him while driving the offending vehicle no. U.P. 53 - 9790. The claim-petitioner has placed reliance upon the renewed licence issued at Mirzapur, U.P. which makes a reference to the original driving licence no. 223/CAL/ 75 issued on 27.01.1975 by the licensing authority at Calcutta.
Denial of a document placed reliance upon by the claimant in the nature of driving licence is within the scope of defence envisaged under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but seeking production of such a documents as per the procedure applicable to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a question that has cropped up in the present proceedings.
Renewal of driving licence is regulated under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides that any licensing authority on an application being made shall renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act. The provisions of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 clearly apply for the renewal of a driving licence countrywide meaning thereby that a driving licence issued in one State can be renewed in another State by the competent authority. Once a driving licence is issued in one State and renewed in other State, the rules applicable in this behalf would be Central Rules framed by the Central Government. The Central Government has already framed the rules known as The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.
Rule 18 of the Central Rules, in its present form do not require any verification by the licensing authority for the purpose of renewal of the licence, therefore, renewed driving licence does not qualify the removal of doubt in respect of original licence within the scope of statute and its application.
Form 54 provided under the Central Rules when read in the light of Rule 150 does provide a clue for obtaining a copy of the documents in the nature of driving licence but the duty cast under the said rule is to the advantage of claimants. Rule 150 for ready reference of the Central Rules is extracted below:-
"150. Furnishing of copies of reports to Claims Tribunal.
(1) The police report referred to in sub-section (6) of section 158 shall be in Form 54.
(2) A registering authority or a police officer who is required to furnish the required information to the person eligible to claim compensation under section 160, shall furnish the information in Form 54, within seven days from the date of receipt of the request and on payment of a fee or rupees ten."
Section 160 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, however, envisages a duty on the part of registering authority or the officer-in-charge of a police station, if so required by a person entitled to claim compensation or insurer on an application for information at the disposal of the said authority on payment of the prescribed fee to provide the requisite information. Section 160 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is reproduced below:-
"160. Duty to furnish particulars of vehicle involved in accident.- A registering authority or the officer-in-charge of a police station shall, if so required by a person who alleges that he is entitled to claim compensation in respect of an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, or if so required by an insurer against whom a claim has been made in respect of any motor vehicle, furnish to that person or to that insurer, as the case may be, on payment of the prescribed fee any information at the disposal of the said authority or the said police officer relating to the identification marks and other particulars of the vehicle and the name and address of the person who was using the vehicle at the time of the accident or was injured by it and the property, if any, damaged in such form and within such time as the Central Government may prescribe."
Section 160 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 150 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 when read together clearly postulate that it is the duty of the registering authority to supply a copy of the documents in connection with a vehicle involved in accident on an application being filed either by the person entitled to compensation or by the insurer etc. The duty cast under the statute and rules framed thereunder on the registering authority is to provide such an information but there is no provision under the Act or the Central Rules under which production of a documents before the tribunal is provided for through the quasi judicial process except Rule 221 of U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998.
The revisionist (insurer) admittedly having invoked the benefit under Section 160 read with Rule 150 of the Central Rules made an application before the registering authority at Kolkatta for the verification of a copy of original licence issued vide no. 223/Cal/75 as was mentioned in the renewal licence. Since the verification of original document was necessary to defend a case, hence the application was filed.
The application so filed by the insurer was turned down by the licensing authority as is evident from the letter dated 07.09.2016 which reads as under :-
"Date 07.09.2016 Ref. No. PB/R/1423/028 Your Ref. No. To, The Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.
C.R.O. - I.T.P. Hub, Kalkata - 700 001 Sub : Verification of Driving Licence bearing No. 223/Cal/75 Dear Sir, As instructed I have visited the office P.V.D. Kolkata several times for verification of aforesaid Driving Licence and to obtain the particulars of said Driving Licence. But I was told that they would not give any Driving Licence particulars about the Driving Licence which was expired and where computerised Number and/or Smart Card Number (i.e. Number prefix like WB - 01 year...........) has not been given.
Yesterday I finally went to P.V.D. And met with the Law Officer & State Public Information Officer he told me that they have closed to issue old Driving Licence particulars about any Driving Licence which was expired. They are issuing only computerised or Smart Card Number Driving Licence particulars.
The Law officer & S.P.I.O. had refused to give such information stating me verbally that there is no provision in the Motor Vehicle Act to supply the same.
I could not get any material reply from them as they opined that nothing could be disclosed untill or unless requires them by issuing SUMMONS TO WINTESS.
Thanking you.
Yours Truly, S/d It is in the back drop of the aforesaid letter that an application was filed before the Tribunal i.e. C-20 which has been rejected by the order impugned passed on 15.07.2016. Once an application filed under Section 160 is not responded, it would be a sufficient ground available to the aggrieved party to make an application under Order XVI Rule 6 for production of relevant documents through quasi judicial proceedings as the licensing authority under the statutory duty was bound to furnish such an information.
Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and the proceedings for compensation are tried summarily. The object of summary procedure is to curtail delay and promote expediency. Though the revisionist or an aggrieved party has a remedy against the licensing authority or in-charge of police station refusing to provide a document applied for under Section 160 read with Rule 150 of the Central Rules but allowing the proceedings to multiply would certainly defeat the purpose of claims lodged under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
In this view of the matter, once the provision under Order XVI Rule 6 is applicable to the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, an application for summoning such a document which has raised a doubt in relation to a claim ought to have been dealt with by the Tribunal in a just and fair manner so as to uphold the majesty and purpose of law. Having extracted the relevant provisions of statute herein above, it is clear beyond doubt that the Tribunal is empowered to summon the relevant documents but in certain situations like the one at hand, it may cause difficulty in terms of expenditure and otherwise. In the instant case, the revisionist (insurer) has himself in the application so filed before the Tribunal made a prayer for summoning of the document at his expense, therefore, even the expenditure was not a difficulty before the Tribunal to overcome.
In light of legal position discussed above, once the Tribunal was bound by the procedure as prescribed under Order XVI Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, there was no reason as to why such an application may not be entertained particularly when it has a bearing on the merit of the case.
It must be understood by the adjudicating authorities that the interest of justice is of course supreme and suffering of a claimant cannot be compromised on technicalities but truthfulness of a valid defence is an equal duty of the Tribunal to explore so as to justify its judgements based on law. Once a genuine defence has been set up and a doubt has cropped up, the duty underlying Order XVI Rule 6 cannot be sidelined. The renewed licence, in view of the legal provisions discussed above, not being sacrosanct, calls for exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal at the Court of revisionist petitioner.
In my humble opinion, the impugned order is a fit case where interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India deserves to be exercised and is accordingly exercised.
For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 15.07.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is hereby set aside and the Tribunal is directed to consider the prayer of the revisionist petitioner to summon the relevant document or its verification expeditiously at their cost. Necessary cost may be directed to be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of ten days from the date of filing of a certified copy of this judgement. [The Senior Registrar / Registrar Listing is directed to forward a copy of this judgement to the concerned Tribunal and all the District Judges for circulation to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal through website or otherwise] Steps to summon the relevant document-verification from the registering authority at Kolkatta are expedited and measures through official website or otherwise be taken forthwith and the whole exercise of verification be completed not later than a period of three months from the date of filing of this order before the tribunal. The proceedings in the claim petition may go on, however, the final decision may be rendered only after obtaining the necessary verification of the driving licence from the authority concerned.
The revision is accordingly allowed.
Order Date :- 28.9.2016 I.A. Siddiqui