NAINAR SUNDARAM, J. - (1.) The matter comes before us on a note by the office of this Court regarding maintainability. The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Madras has passed an order on 1-2-1980 in O. P. 182 of 1979, dismissing the said petition preferred under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act IV of 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act, by the appellants in the proposed civil miscellaneous appeal, for a compensation of Rs. 75,000, relatable to the death of one Mohan in a motor accident on 7-12-1978. The proposed civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order of the Claims Tribunal. Pleading that they are indigent persons the appellants have filed a petition under O.44, R.1, C.P. Code, hereinafter referred to as the Code, for leave to file the appeal as indigent persons. The office of this court felt a difficulty and a doubt as to the propriety of the appellants invoking the provisions of the Code and that too, O.44 and the allied provisions of the Code, in the proposed appeal before this court.
(2.) The Claims Tribunals under the Act get constituted by and they function and exercise powers within the ambit of the relevant provisions in the Act found in Ss.110, 110-A to 110-E, except S.110-D which relates to appeals to this court. The State Government, under S.111-A is invested with powers to make rules to effectuate the provisions of Ss.110 to 110-E. We find that pursuant to this power, the Tamil Nadu Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals Rules, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, have been framed. The Rules so framed practically regulate the proceedings before the Claims Tribunals. Rule 20 deals with fees for proceedings and sub-rule (2) thereof gives the discretion to the Claims Tribunals to grant exemption from the payment of fees prescribed. Rule 18 enumerates certain provisions of the Code, which are to apply so far as may be to proceedings before the Claims Tribunals. Sec.110-C(2) should also be taken note of when it states that the Claims Tribunals shall have all the powers of a civil court for specified purposes. In this appeal proposed, we are not concerned with the powers of the Claims Tribunals to invoke the provisions of O.33 of the Code and permit any person to institute proceedings before them as indigent person, that question does not arise for consideration at all before us.
(3.) So far as this court is concerned, appeal against the award of the Claims Tribunal lies to it under S.110 D which runs as follows - "Appeals : (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sec.(2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court: Provided that, the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than two thousand rupees." The ambit of the powers of this Court in appeal is not touched at all either by the provisions of the Act or the rules. Rule 19 merely speaks about the form of the appeal and R.20 lays down the Court-fees payable on appeal. The question that arises for consideration in such a contingency is as to whether this court, in the exercise of its appellate powers, permit the invocation of O.44 and thereby O.33 of the Code, to enable a person to prefer an appeal under the Act to this court as an indigent person. That is the question that has directly arisen before us for consideration.;