Hon'ble TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE present writ petition has been preferred to challenge the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur dated 12.11.2009 (Annex.5) whereby the petitioner's- Insurance Company's application filed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988 for short) seeking permission to contest the claim of the respondents-claimants has been rejected with cost of Rs.300/-. According to the petitioner-Insurance Company, the claim petition has been filed collusively for getting the claim of the Insurance Policy by which the petitioner covered the risk of truck No.RJ-19-G-7257. According to the petitioner-Insurance Company, the said truck No.RJ-19-G-7257 was not involved in the accident and this plea was taken specifically in the reply filed by the petitioner-Insurance Company. It is also submitted that for this very accident FIR No.299/2008 was registered at Police Station Bilara on 2.8.2008 itself as lodged by one Abhishekh Gulechha and wherein it has been stated that the car in which the victim were travelling collied with an unknown truck. Be it as it may be, the petitioner sought permission under Section 170 of the Act of 1988 to contest the claim by moving the application wherein it has also been stated that the driver-cum-owner did not choose to cross-examine the claimants on material points which" also suggests the collusion of claimants with the respondent owner/driver. The learned tribunal passed the following order in the order-sheet dated 12.11.2009 (Annex.5): JUDGEMENT_1768_RAJLW2_2011Image1.jpg JUDGEMENT_1768_RAJLW2_2011Image2.jpg On 12.5.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in the course of arguments that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur is not recording the evidence in accordance with rules and Insurance Companies even are not normally permitted to cross-examine witnesses of the claimants even on permissible grounds. However, another Motor Accident Claims Tribunal takes evidence in detail in the language of witnesses and permitting the parties to cross-examine the witnesses. Noticing these two procedures adopted by the two Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in one city Jodhpur itself, this court directed to issue notice to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur as that tribunal's procedure was questioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It will be worthwhile to mention here that notice was issued to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur in spite of the fact that subsequently, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that in the interest of justice permission to contest the claim case may be given to the Insurance Company and Insurance Company may be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of the claimants and this court allowed the cross-examination of the witnesses produced by the claimants by the same order. But to find out what should be the procedure for recording statement of the witnesses in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, this court issued notice. In response to the notice, a written submission has been sent to this Court by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur pointing out that the procedure adopted by the said Motor Accident Claims Tribunal i.e., Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur was in accordance with Rule 10.19 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1990 for short), which provides recording of memorandum of substance of the evidence of the witnesses in the claim cases and, therefore, the procedure adopted by the said tribunal was correct and in accordance with law.
(3.) THE respondents even after agreeing for allowing the Insurance Company to cross-examine the witnesses of the claimants submitted an application under Section 151 CPC pointing out that the petitioner mislead this court by placing on record the copy of the order-sheet dated 12.11.2009 (Annex.5) and that was not the order itself but was the copy of the order-sheet only. According to the claimants, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed the order on the back of the application submitted by the petitioner Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Act of 1988. THE said order as drawn on the back of the application under Section 170 of the Act of 1988 is as under:- JUDGEMENT_1768_RAJLW2_2011Image3.jpg A bare perusal of both the orders would reveal that there are two orders on one application; one drawn in order-sheet (Annex.5) duly signed by the Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Jodhpur and another as written on the back of the application, copy of which is placed on record as Annex.B alongwith the application filed under Section 151 CPC by the claimants. Normally detailed orders are drawn separately and operative portion is recorded in the order-sheet indicating that separate order has been passed and conclusion or operative part of the separate order are drawn in the order-sheet. It appears that though the last 3 words in order-sheet dated 12.11.2009 may be indicative to passing a separate order, but the language used may be confusing also, which may have resulted into issuing by the officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal or obtaining the certified copy of the order drawn on order-sheet dated 12.11.2009 presuming said order-sheet dated 12.11.2009 to be the main order and, therefore, the petitioner may have placed on record the copy of the order-sheet dated 12.11.2009 only. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the claim petition, the reply, the evidence recorded in the claim case, therefore, this court is of the view that it was not deliberate act of the petitioner to suppress the fact as alleged by the claimants that copy of the order-sheet is not the actual order. Be it as it may be, the practice of writing order on the application itself cannot be appreciated and it should be avoided. When the tribunal or court is proposing to pass a brief order, which can conveniently be recorded in the order-sheet and that can be done even during the course of proceedings in the court as has been done in this case, which is apparent from the order drawn in the order dated 12.11.2009 wherein the learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal recorded that an application was submitted on behalf of the petitioner-Insurance Company during the cross-examination of the witnesses of the claimants and that has been rejected obviously by order passed on application itself, copy of which is placed on record as. Annex.B. Therefore, the tribunal could have proceeded to pass this very order in the order-sheet in stead of drawing the order on the application and could have proceeded further to continue the courts business. Writing order on the application can create only confusion as even if the party to the litigation inspect the files to find out the orders, he is not supposed to look into back side of each of the applications so as to find out whether there is any order passed on the application or not and passing of the order on the application further makes a room for keeping orders at different places and also it may result into writing two languages for one decision; one in the main order and another in the order-sheet. In order sheet dated 12.11.2009 which must have been written subsequent to order dated 12.11.2009 as drawn on the back of the application, it is mentioned that during the course of cross-examination application under Section 170 of the Act of 1988 was submitted and it was rejected, whereas so is not written in order drawn on the back of the application. There may be several other reasons, but I need not to give exhaustive list nor it can be given for holding that the tribunal and courts should not write the orders on the back of the applications and should draw the order in the order-sheet itself if the orders can be drawn in order-sheet and in brief. ;