APPELLANT: HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH. BILASPUR IVIiscellaneousADDealNo.964of2004 Rajnee Bai, W/o Late Sita Ram Gond, aged about 46 years, R/o village Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.) RESPONDENTS: Versus 1. Shri D. Ramesh Gulari, s/o no knowledge, r/o Shankar Nagar, Distt. Qurg (C.G.) 2. Shri Laxman Marar, s/o Shyam Lal Marar, r/o Tiria Bhan, Tah. Shaza, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., through Branch Manager, Parak Bhawari; Station Road, Disft. Durg (C.G.) {Miscellaneousappeal underSection 173 ofthe l\4otorV^hiGles;Act, 1988} Present: Mr. Suidhir Kashyap, counsel forthe appellant. Mr. Akhil Mishra, counsel for respondent No.T. None present for respondent No.2, ^ Mr. Neeraj Pradhan, counsel for respondent No.3. Division Bench: - Mon'ble IWr. T.P. Sharma & Hon'blelVlr. R.N. Chandrakar. JJ ORALORDER «• (17-2-2010) , 1. Challenge iri this appeal is to the order dated 11-5-2004 passed 6y the 2 Additional Motor Accidehts Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim CaseNo. 18/2004, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the cl'aim case on the ground that the appellanthas not filed the death certificate as reqyjred under Rule 220 (3) (i) of the Chhattisgarh MotorVehicles Rules, 1994 (for short'the Rules'). .^ • ' : • •• • •••••' 2. Order is impugned onthe ground that during the pendency ofclaim^case the appellant has filed application for callihg the record bf criminal case -containing post-mortem report of the deceased and the Court has .—•:->—.- -.a'"if tST"'" requisitioned the record of criminal case Gohtaining the post-mortem report which is sufficient compliance of the provisions of Rule 220 (3) (i) ofthe Rules. 3. Brieffacts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that claim case for award of compensation on account of the death of Dev Kumar was filed by the appellant herein against the respondents. Opportunity of filing death certificate was given to the appellant as required under Rule 220 (3) (i) of the Rules and vide the drder impugned, the claim case was dismissed on the ground that the applicant has failed to file death certificate as required under Rule 220 (3)(i) ofthe Rules. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and record of the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant frankly admits that the appellant has not filed any death certificate before the Tribunal, but has filed application for requisitioning the record of criminal case containing post- mortem reportof the deceased which was allowedvideorderdated 26-8- 2003 and record of criminal case was requisitioned whichwas received on or before 29-9-2003, but even thereafter the Tribunal has dismissed the claim case. Learned counsel further submits that requisitionirig of the record of criminal case containing post-mortem report is sufficient compliance of the provisions of Rule 220 (3) (i) of the Rules and no specific proforma ofdeath certificate has been provided in the Rutes. / . • • ••'•••' 6. On the other hand, learned cpunsel appearingon behalf of respondents No;1 & 3 opposed the appeal and submitted that claimeasewas pending before the Tribunal since 18-4-91 and ample opporturiity was given to the appellant for fjling document and in absence of document the Tribunal has rightlydismissedtheclaimcase. .jT^ 7. Record of the Tribunal reveals that the claim case has been filed on 18- 4-91 prior to framing of the Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. Record of the Tribunal further reveals that application for requisitioning of the record of criminal case wasiallowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 26-8-2003, the record was available before the Tribunal on 29-9-2003 and the Tribunal has dismissed the claim case on 11-5-2004. No "9 specific proforma for death certificate has been provided in the Rules. 8. While dealingwith the same question in the matter of Brijlal Yadav & anotherv. Horilal Sahu & others (M.A.No.220/2004), this Courthas held that filing of copy of post-mortem report is sufficientcompliance ofclause (i) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 220 of the Rules. Paras 10 & 11 of the order dated 9-10-2009 passed in the above citedcase read asfollows: - "10. While dealing with the question of usage ofword "shall" in sub-rule (3) of Rule 220 of the Rules, after plaeing reliance in the matters of State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava ,State of Uttar PradesH and others v. Babu Ram Upadhya , IVI/S. Saihik Mbtors, Jodhpurand others v. State of Rajasthah , Govind Lal Chaggan Lal Patel v. The Agriculture ProducelVlarket Committee and others , Shriram v. State of hflaharashtra, Khub Chand and others v. State of Rajasthan and others , MaridWar Singh v. Bagun Sumbrui & In re. Presidential Election 19748, this Court in M.A.No.278/2001 (Sukhdev Sai v. Executive Engineer Public Works Department & others) vide.its order dated 7-4-2008 has held that use of the word "shall" does not make sub-rule (3) of Rule 220 of the Rules mandatory"and the said sub-rule is directory, 'AIR 2AIR 3-AIR "AIR 5AIR 6AIR 7'A\R 8AIR 1957SC 1961 SC 1961 SC 1976SC 1961SC 1&67SC. 1972SC 1974SC 912 751 1480 263 674 1074 1242 1682 :'yfm -• 1S- •<»"- non-compliance of the same has not an automatic consequence of leading to the dismissal of the claim petition. Para 18 of the order. passed in M.A. No.278/2001 reads as follows: - "For the foregoing discussions, it is apparent that if strict interpretation is given to the word "shall' used in sub-rule (3) of Rule 220 of the Rules and the provistons are held mandatory it shall defeat the very purpose ofthis procedural legislation and also the main legislation on the subject. Therefore, we hold that the provisions ofsub-rule (3) of Rule220-ofthe Rules are not mandatory and they are directory and the non-compliance of sub-rule (3) of Rule 220 has not an automatiG consequence of leading to the dismissal of the claim petition." 11. Rule 220 (3) (i) of the Rules provides that in case of injury, certificate in form MPMVR-76 (COMP-B)shall be appended with the application for compensation and in case oideath, the death certificate. The Legislature has provided'form for injury certificate but has not provided form/proforma for death certificate. Filing of autopsyreportcontaining death and its cause would be sufficient to constitute the doeument of death certificate. Even otherwi.se, non-Gompliance or violation of sub-rule (3) of Rule 220 of the Rules does not lead to the consequence of dismissal of the application for compensation. The Tribunal has not considered the very aspect of the Legislation and nature of the provisions of clause (i) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 220 of the Rules and thereby.committed illegality bydismissing the application for compensation." 9. In thelight of the aforesaid legal proposition, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed illegality in dismissing the daim .case. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Theorder impugned is . hereby set aside and the case is remitted back to the 2 Additional 'tWS,. Soma 1 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg for deciding thle caSe pn^m^rits. Parties are directed t6 appear before the Tribunal on 30-3-2010 for further progress of the case. The appellant is also directed to file copy of post-mortem report before the Tribunal. Parties shall bear their own costs. lO.AdvoG^te fees as per schedule. ,t Sd/-. .. -. T.P.Shas^na' ,: :" Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Ju^ge T3t