CHAUDHRY ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 13. 2. 1980 made by Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Delhi, awarding a sum of Rs. 8,200. 00 in favour of respondent No. 2 and against the appellant. Shri Hari Har Kumar, respondent No. 2, filed a petition under section 110 (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the appellant and General Insurance Society Ltd. claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 32,000. 00 on account of the injury received by him in a motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of a scooter by the appellant. In the claim petition, the appellant was respondent No. l. The petition was contested by the appellant On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Scooter No. DHV 1294 on the part of respondent No. 1 as alleged? (2) To what amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled and from whom? (3) Whether respondent No. 2, Ins. Company is not liable on account of the pleas raised in the preliminary objections of W. S. ? (4) Relief. ( 2 ) ON Issue No. l, the Tribunal returned the finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the appellant/respondent No. l. The General Insurance Company who was respondent No. 2 in the petition was held not to be liable to pay any amount The compensation was assessed at Rs. 8,200. 00. Feeling aggrieved by this award, the appellant has preferred TO the present appeal. It may be stated that none appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2 at the time of hearing of this appeal, despite the fact that the matter remained on the Regular Board for a number of dates. ( 3 ) THE main contention of Mr. Bhandari, appearing for the appellant was that the order of the Tribunal dated 13. 2. 1980 by which the evidence of the appellant was closed, was without jurisdiction and contrary to law. It was contended that on 13. 12. 1979, the case was adjourned to 25. 1. 1980 for recording the evidence of the appellant. On 25. 1. 1980, the Presiding Officer was on leave. The Reader of the Court fixed 13. 2. 1980 for recording evidence of the appellant. On 13. 2. It was contended that on 13. 12. 1979, the case was adjourned to 25. 1. 1980 for recording the evidence of the appellant. On 25. 1. 1980, the Presiding Officer was on leave. The Reader of the Court fixed 13. 2. 1980 for recording evidence of the appellant. On 13. 2. 1980 the court passed the following order:- "present: Counsel for the petitioner. None for respondent No. l. Mr. J. L-Wasan for respondent No steps have been taken by respondent No. l to summon the witnesses. Accordingly, evidence of respondent No. l is closed. Argu- ments heard. To come up after lunch for orders. " Mr. Bhandari submitted that the dider passed on 13. Z 1980 was without jurisdiction for the reason that on 25. 1. 1980 the Presiding Officer was on leave and the Reader of the Court could not fix 13. Z1980 for recording evidence of me appellant/respondent No. l. Reader of the Court had no power or jurisdiction to fix a date for ^hearing . As such the proceedings X taken on 13. Z1980 were without jurisdiction and contrary to law. The Tribunal could not close the evidence of me appellant. The appellant was not bound to produce his evidence on 13. Z1980 as it was not a day to which the hearing of tee petition was adjourned. In support of his contention he relied upon a judgment of mis court reported as Savitri Devi Vs. M/s. Public Witnessan Chand; 1978 RLR 350 wherein it was held as under: "as this is a point which is liable to occur frequently, I may point out that the provisions of Order 17, Rule 2 of C. P. C. , support the contention of the petitioners. That Rule states: "where, on any day to which the hearing of me suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to appear, the court may proceed to dispose of me suit in one of the modes directed in that behalf by order IX or make such other order as it thinks fit It may be seen that this provision only applies if there is an adjourned date. As the Reader cannot adjourn a suit, it follows that Order 17, Rule 2of the Code cannot apply if the date has been fixed by the Reader. As the Reader cannot adjourn a suit, it follows that Order 17, Rule 2of the Code cannot apply if the date has been fixed by the Reader. In fact, a date given by a Reader in these circumstances can best be described as a date for appearance and cannot be described as an adjourned date. "mr. Bhandari also cited at the bar two Judgments of the Lahore High Court i. e. Jowala Sahai Vs. Maya Das; (1932) 33 PLR 804 and Hujam Chand Vs. Mni Shibratdass;air 1934 Lah 984. ( 4 ). I have given my thoughtful consideration. It may be stated that the accident occurred on 3. 4. 1976 and the award was made on 13. 2. 1980. The case is governed by the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act of 1939. Section 110 (c) of the 1939 Act provides the procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal as under:- "procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals - (1) In holding any inquiry under Section HOB, the Claims Tribunals may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunals shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1898 (5 of 1898 ). "10. Order XVI, Rules 2 to 21; Order XVII; and Order XXIII, Rules 1 to 3. ( 5 ) BY virtue of these Rules, Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. I am in respectful agreement with the law laid down in Savitri Devi s case (supra ). I hold that it is not within the province of a Reader of the Court to fix a date of hearing of the case. It can be done only by the Court. The provisions of Order 17 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure can not apply if the date for hearing has been fixed by the Reader of the Court. It can be done only by the Court. The provisions of Order 17 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure can not apply if the date for hearing has been fixed by the Reader of the Court. The appellant was not bound to comply with the directions given by the Reader of the Court. The Reader of the Court, when the Presiding Officer is on leave, is not competent to pass an order i. e. fixing a date of hearing which can bind the parties. The Tribunal wrongly and illegally closed the evidence of the appellant on 13. 2. 1980. In view of this, the award made by the Tribunal on 13. 2. 1980 suffers from legal infirmity and is bound to be set aside. ( 6 ). In the result, I allow this appeal, set aside the award made by respondent No. l and remand the case to the Tribunal for decision afresh after giving opportunity to the appellant to produce his evidence. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.