SYED HABIBULLAH Vs. STATE OF MYSORE
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
STATE OF MYSORE
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The source of this revision, petition is an application made by petitioner
No. 2 in this revision petition (who was respondent No. 2 in the lower
Court) under S. 110A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 before the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Shimoga, which will hereinafter be referred as the
Claims Tribunal. In that application, petitioner No. 2 had claimed compensation
of Rs. 2700 on the ground that due to the rash and negligent
driving of the vehicle belonging to the B.D.O. Channagiri, he sustained
injuries and also suffered damages. He claimed therein a sum of Rs. 500
as damages for expenses incurred by him during his treatment;. Rs. 500
was claimed by him for mental and physical suffering; a sum of Rs. 1500
was claimed for loss of earning for a period of six months; and a sum of
Rs. 200 was claimed as the value of the bicycle which had been damaged.
The Claims Tribunal, on the evidence produced before it, awarded
compensation of Rs. 1660 to petitioner No. 2. The Claims Tribunal was of
the view that the claim of petitioner No. 2 in regard to loss of earnings in
a sum of Rs. 1500 was not factually true, and the petitioner No. 2 was
entitled to get only a sum of Rs. 660 on that count, at the rate of Rs. 110
per month for six months. The petitioner No. 2 had claimed at the rate
of Rs. 250 per month. The Claims Tribunal further found that the register
marked Ex. P-3 was a got up document which had been fabricated by
petitioner No. 1 to support his evidence given before the Tribunal, which,
according to the Claims Tribunal, was false evidence and accordingly, the
District Judge, Shimoga, who was the Presiding Officer of the Claims Tribunal,
recorded his finding against both the petitioners 1 and 2 under S. 479A
(2.)It appears from the records that the District Judge who recorded that
finding was transferred and he was succeeded by another District Judge.
The succeeding District Judge directed that notice should be issued to the
petitioners. The petitioners, thereafter. effected their appearance and
submitted their objections. After hearine them the District Judge directed
that a complaint should be lodged against petitioners 1 and 2 in the Court
of competent jurisdiction. It is against that order that this revision petition
is preferred in this Court.
(3.)The learned Government Pleader raised a preliminary objection with
regard to the maintainability of the revision petition. He argued that the
order in revision is made admittedly by the District Judge who has taken
action under S. 479A Crl.PC. He submitted that this Court, as a Court of
revision, has no power to interfere under S. 439 of Crl.PC. He urged that
the order being one mads by the Claims Tribunal which is a Civil Court,
the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure should be made applicable
to the case and not those of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further
contended in this connectio'n that it has been expressly laid down in S.
110 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act that the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed ,
to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of S. 195 and Chapter XXXV of
Crl. PC. Therefore he urged that since the order in revision was made by
the Civil Court, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are
attracted to this case, and consequently this revision petition which is filed
under Sec. 435 and Sec. 439 Cr. P.C. is maintainable.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.