ORDER
1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and is directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore dated 29th January 1968, made in Misc. Case No. 461 of 1964 by which the said Tribunal rejected the petitioner's application for compensation on the ground that her application does not disclose any cause of action.
2. The petitioner's husband died in a motor accident on 12th March, 1964, and she made an application for compensation claiming a sum of Rs. 20,000/-from respondents 2 to 4. Respondent 2 was the driver of the Bus No. MYD 3349, belonging to the 3rd respondent, the Hindustan Aircraft Limited. (Hindustan Aeronautics Limited), which caused the accident. The 4th respondent is the secretary. Mysore Government Insurance Department. Bangalore 1, in which the bus in question had been insured. The application was filed in the form prescribed under the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules. Only the 3rd respondent contested the said application on merits of the claim. The said respondent did not raise any objection in its pleadings that the application does not disclose any cause of action and therefore it is liable to be rejected. The application though filed in the year 1964, remained on the file of the Tribunal for four years. After one witness was examined the Tribunal suo motu raised the objection on 22-1-1968 that the application does not disclose any cause of action and that there is no allegation that the accident was the result of a rash and negligent act on the Part of the respondents. The petitioner was asked to suitably amend the application by alleging the cause of action. The petitioner maintained that the application was in order since it is strictly in conformity with the form prescribed under the rules. The tribunal by its order dated 28-1-1968 held that the claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, can be made only if the applicant alleges that the accident was caused as a result of the rash and negligent act of the respondent.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion the course adopted by the Tribunal is in rejecting the claim application wholly unsupportable. It appears to us, that the Tribunal wanted to make a short cut of the entire case on its merits, particularly when no such objection had been raised in the pleadings on behalf of the contesting respondents. It is not the view of the Tribunal that the application is not in conformity with the form prescribed. Before us also it is not contend ed by the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd Respondent that the application is not in conformity with the prescribed form. All that the learned counsel submitted was, that the averment regarding rash and negligent act could have been mentioned against Column 22 (Any other information that may be necessary or helpful in the disposal of the claim.)
4. Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 provides for making an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified In Sub-section (1) of Section 110. Sub-section (2) of that section provides:
'Every application under Sub-section (1) shall be made to the claims Tribunals having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident, occurred, and shall be in such a form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.'
The Motor Accident, Claims Tribunal Rules. 1963 were framed by the State Government under the powers vested by virtue of the Section 111 of the Act. The form of the application is Form No. 82 of the Rules, In the said form the applicant is required to furnish specific particulars with respect to 21 matters enumerated in columns 1 to 21. In addition thereto, under column 22 the applicant is free to furnish any other information that may be necessary or helpful in the disposal of the claim. It is quite clear that the particulars that the applicant may furnish against column 22 are not facts that constitute the cause of action. Order VII. Rule 1 of the Code qf Civil Procedure does not govern applications for compensation under the Act. Similarly, Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code does not apply. If the Rule making authority had intended that the application shall contain all particulars as in a plaint nothing would have been easier than to state so. It is also necessary to observe that the Tribunal is not competent to find fault with the form prescribed by the Rule making authority. If the application is made in the form prescribed the Tribunal is bound to enquire into the claim.
5. In our judgment the Tribunal in the instant case has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under the Act and therefore we quash the impugned order dated 29-1-1968 made in Misc. Case No. 461 of 1964 and direct the 1st respondent Tribunal to restore the petitioner's application on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.