Honble TIBREWAL, J.–These special appeals have been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short ``the RSRTC) under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 wherein, challenge is made to the judgment dated April 11, 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeals. Before the learned Single Judge the awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (for short "the Tribunal") were under challenge. The Tribunal had awarded compensation to the claimants holding that accident was as a result of contributory negligence of both the drivers of the bus and car in which the deceased and injured persons were travelling. Four claim petitions were filed by the victims and heirs of the deceased which were decided separately by the Claims Tribunal, Ajmer. The, RSRTC, being aggrieved of the awards, preferred appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. All the appeals were decided by a common judgment and order by the learned Single Judge which is under challenge in the present appeals. The learned Single Judge has confirmed the finding and awards of the Claims Tribunal. (2). Shri Deepak Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, challenged the findings of the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge whereby, the bus driver of the appellant was also held guilty of contributory negligence. Another challenge is laid with regard to the guidelines which have been issued by the learned Single Judge while deciding the appeals. (3). For the first contention, Shri Goyal urged that there is no evidence on record to prove contributory negligence of the bus driver. The Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge, after considering the materials on record, have held the bus driver to be guilty of contributory negligence. The statement of the bus driver was not accepted in view of the facts noticed at the site of accident while preparing Site Plan. Basically, the question whether the bus driver was negligent or not in driving the bus is a question of fact and we are of the view that finding on this score is not perverse so as to call for any interference by this Court in exercise of power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. Basically, the question whether the bus driver was negligent or not in driving the bus is a question of fact and we are of the view that finding on this score is not perverse so as to call for any interference by this Court in exercise of power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. In our view, the finding of contributory negligence arrived at by the Tribunal as well as by the learned Single Judge is based on appreciation of evidence and by applying the principle of RES IPSA LOQUITOR. (4). The learned Single Judge while deciding the appeals has issued certain directions about the procedure to be adopted by the Claims Tribunals in Rajasthan while deciding applications for compensation. The contention of Shri Goyal, that the learned Single Judge has exceeded in his jurisdiction while giving guidelines regarding the procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunals needs serious consideration. The learned Single Judge while deciding the appeals has issued certain directions about the procedure to be adopted by the Claims Tribunals in Rajasthan while deciding applications for compensation. The contention of Shri Goyal, that the learned Single Judge has exceeded in his jurisdiction while giving guidelines regarding the procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunals needs serious consideration. In order to appreciate the contention, we would like to reproduce Para-11 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge which contains the guidelines, which is thus: ifj.kker% ;g pkjksa vihysa ,oa izfr-vkifRr;kWa fujLr dh tkrh gS] fdUrq v/khuLFk eksVj nq?kZVuk okn vf/kdj.kksa }kjk Dyse ;kfpdkvksa ds fuLrkj.k gsrq viukbZ tk jgh izfØ;k ds ifjizs{; esa O;Dr dh xbZ mDr vo/kkj.kkvksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, eSa fuEu funsZk nsuk U;k; ds fgr esa mfpr le>rk gwWa& ¼v½ eksVj nq?kZVuk okn vf/kdj.k fpfdRldh; lk{kh ¼esfMdy foVusl½ ds izekf.kr nLrkost dks n.M izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 291 ds vUrxZr lk{; esa xzg.k dj ldrs gSaA ¼c½ fpfdRldh; lk{; ds lEcU/k esa fu;e 10] 19 fu;e 1990 ds f}rh; ijUrqd dks n.M izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 291 ds lkFk i<+k tk ldsxk vkSj mDr lk{; dks /kkjk 291] n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds vUrxZr xzg.k fd;k tk ldsxkA ¼l½ eksVj nq?kZVuk okn vf/kdj.kksa }kjk lk{khx.k ds dFkuksa dk laf{kIr lkj kiFk i=ksa ds vk/kkj ij ys[kc) fd;k tkosxk rFkk fdUgha foks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;fn fdlh lk{kh dk izfrijh{k.k vko;d gks rks vf/kdj.k igys ;Fkksfpr dkj.k crkrs gq, vknsk ikfjr djsxk rnqijkUr mDr lk{kh dks vkgwr fd;k tk ldsxkA ¼n½ nLrkost lk{; dks i{kdkjksa ds ,Mehku fMuk;y ds vk/kkj ij iznfkZr djk;k tk ldsxk vkSj ;fn dksbZ i{kdkj fdlh nLrkost dks vLohdkj djrk gS lks i{kdkjksa ds kiFk i=sa ,oa izfr kiFk i=sa ds vk/kkj ij mDr nLrkost dks foosfpr fd;k tk ldsxkA ¼;½ v/khuLFk vf/kdj.k muds le{k fopkjk/khu oknksa dk kh?kzkfrkh?kz fuLrk.k djus dk iz;Ru djsaxs vkSj vuko;d LFkxu ugha nsaxsA ¼j½ mi fucU/kd ¼U;kf;d½ dks funsZk fn;k tkrk gS fd og bl vknsk dh izfr jktLFkku esa fLFkr lHkh eksVj nq?kZVuk okn vf/kdj.kksa dks vfoyEc izsf"kr djsxkA (5). Chapter-XlI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act), under heading Claims Tribunal contains provisions for the constitution of a Claims Tribunal, qualification of its member or members, procedure and its powers. Sub-sec. Chapter-XlI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act), under heading Claims Tribunal contains provisions for the constitution of a Claims Tribunal, qualification of its member or members, procedure and its powers. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 165 provides that no person except a person who is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court or who has been a Judge of the High Court or who is a District Judge, can be appointed as a member of the Tribunal. Sub-sec. (2) lays down that a Claims Tribunal shall consist of such member or members as the State Govt. may think fit to appoint and where it consists of two or more members, one of them shall be appointed as the Chairman thereof. These provisions clearly bring out the legislative policy behind it which is nothing but appointing a person as a member of the Tribunal having sufficient judicial acumen and experience as wide powers are conferred on him to adjudicate upon the lis and shortening of the lengthy procedure in ordinary common law Court so that a speedy and efficacious remedy can be made available to the innocent victims and their dependents. While interpreting the powers of a Claims Tribunal, this legislative intent must be borne in mind. (6). Then, Sec. 169 of the Act lays down the procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal in holding an inquiry on the application for compensation. The section reads as under: ``169. Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunal-(1) In holding any inquiry under Sec. 168, the Claims Tribunal 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 Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Sec. 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (3) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Claims Tribunal may for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claim for compensation choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of any matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it holding the inquiry." (7). A bare perusal of Sec. 169 goes to show that in absence of any rules framed under the Act, the Tribunal is free to follow any procedure which it considers expedient in the interest of justice. In fact, there is no prescribed procedure rigidly controlling the proceedings of the Tribunal and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code do not apply to the inquiries before the Tribunal. Still, while formulating its own procedure, the Tribunal has to keep in mind that the matter pertains to the domain of judicial discretion to be governed by the rules of reason and justice. The Tribunal cannot exercise unfettered, absolute or arbitrary powers to do at its whims ignoring the principles of natural justice. While formulating its own procedure, the Tribunal will ordinarily be guided by analogous provisions in the C.P.C. (8). The State Government, in exercise of its powers conferred by Sec. 212 and other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has framed the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 1990) Chapter X of the Rules contains the heading "Claims Tribunal". Rule 10.2 states that an application for the compensation arising out of the accident shall be in form R.S.10.1 and shall contain the particulars specified in the form. It also provides that the following documents shall be appended to every such applications- (i) Medical Certificate in FORM R.S. 10 in case of death Post Mortem Report or Death Certificate. (ii) First Information Report in respect of accident; and (iii) Certificate regarding ownership and insurance particulars of the vehicle involved in accident from the Registering Authority of the Policy. (9). Then, Rule 10.6 states that on receipt of an application, the Tribunal may examine the applicant on oath, and the substance of such examination, if any, shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the member constituting the Claims Tribunal or as the case may be, the Chairman. Rule 10.7 empowers Claims Tribunal to dismiss the application if it is of an opinion that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding forthwith. Rule 10.7 empowers Claims Tribunal to dismiss the application if it is of an opinion that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding forthwith. Under Rule 10.8 in case, the application is not dismissed, the Tribunal shall send to the owner or the Driver of the vehicle or both, from whom the applicant claims, relief and the insurer, a copy of the application together with the notice of the date on which it will disposed off the application, and may call upon the parties to produce on that date any evidence which they may wish to tender. Rules 10.9, 10.10, 10.11, 10.16, 10.17 and 10.19 provide the procedure to be followed in the inquiry after appearance of the opposite party which include filing of written statement, examination of the parties upon the claim, if no written statement has been filed by the opposite party, framing of issues, local inspection, summary examination of any person during a local inspection or during other time, save as formal hearing of a case, summoning of witnesses. Rule 10. 19 states the method of recording of evidence and it reads as under : ``10.19. Method of recording Evidence:- The Claims Tribunal shall, as examination of witnesses proceeds, make a brief memorandum of a substance of the evidence of each witness and such memorandum shall be written and signed by the members of Claims Tribunal and shall form part of the record : Provided that, if the member or the Chairman of the Claims Tribunal is prevented from making such memorandum, he shall record the reason of his inability to do so and shall cause such memorandum to be made in writing from his dictation and shall sign the same, and such memorandum shall form part of the record: Provided further that the evidence of any medical witness shall be taken down as nearly as may be word to word. (10). Thus, the rules framed by the State Government, particularly Chapter-X contains some procedure to be followed by the Tribunal while making an inquiry on a claim petition. On other points not expressly provided, the Tribunal is free to adopt its own procedure to be followed as laid down in Sec. 169 of the Act. (11). (10). Thus, the rules framed by the State Government, particularly Chapter-X contains some procedure to be followed by the Tribunal while making an inquiry on a claim petition. On other points not expressly provided, the Tribunal is free to adopt its own procedure to be followed as laid down in Sec. 169 of the Act. (11). In view of the above provisions no general direction can be given by this Court to a Claims Tribunal to follow a particular procedure, and if any such directions are given, it would amount infringement in the domain of the Tribunal. The method for recording evidence by Claims Tribunal has been provided under Rule 10.19 as referred to above, which requires that the Tribunal shall make a brief memorandum of the substance of the evidence of each witness, but the evidence of any medical witness shall be taken down as nearly as may be word to word. In other words, the evidence of a medical witness has to be recorded in full as deposed by the witness. The first two directions given by the learned Single Judge relate to import the provisions of Sec. 291 Cr.P.C. for the proof of medical certificates and to read second proviso to Rule 10.9 of the Rules of 1990 alongwith Sec. 291 Cr.P.C. In our considered view, such directions are neither permissible nor legally sound. The provisions contained in Sec. 291 Cr.P.C. cannot be imported and applied as the proceeding before the Claims Tribunal is not an inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sec.291 Cr.P.C. reads as under: ``291. Deposition of medical witness. (1) The deposition of a civil surgeon or other medical witness, taken and attested by a Magistrate in the presence of the accused, or taken on commission under this Chapter may be given in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, although, the deponent is not called as a witness. (2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any such deponent as to the subject matter of his deposition." (12). A bare perusal of the above section shows that its application is restricted to an inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any such deponent as to the subject matter of his deposition." (12). A bare perusal of the above section shows that its application is restricted to an inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure. To say that Sec. 291 Cr.P.C. shall be read in second proviso to Rule 10.19, would be exercising legislative power of the State Government by the Court which is not permissible. Similarly, to say that evidence shall be recorded by way of affidavits of the witnesses, would be contrary to Rule 10.19, which provides the method of recording evidence of the witnesses. It also provides that the evidence of a medical witness shall be taken down as nearly as may be word to word. This method cannot be substituted by giving general directions, which is contrary to the Rules and also Sec. 169 of the Act which empowers Tribunal to prescribe its own procedure in absence of any express rule made under the Act. Similar is the position with regard to direction No.4. (13). Thus, in our view, the learned Single Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction in giving general directions as contained in Para 11 of the judgment to be followed by all Claims Tribunals in Rajasthan. The above directions are, therefore, quashed and set-aside. (14). With the above modification, the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is maintained.