JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J. (Oral). - Shri Vinod Sharma has filed power of attorney in the court which is taken on record. 2. This revision petition has been taken up for final hearing today with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. Both of them submitted that since the case is fixed for evidence of the petitioner-claimant before the learned tribunal below. Therefore ,it may be finally heard and disposed of at this stage . 3. Admitted facts of this case are that a claim petition for grant of compensation has been filled by the petitioner which is pending before the learned tribunal below. It is at the evidence stage and is now fixed on 14.6.2002 for recording of evidence on behalf of the claimant. 4. It may also, be observed in this behalf that the petitioner-claimant is claiming compensation in respect of injuries sustained by her in the accident in question. According to Ms. Prerna Ronta, the petitioner was undergoing treatment at Indira Gandhi Medical Hospital Shimla. Thereafter she was discharged from the Hospital. According to her, she had undergone treatment from Dr. Pradeep Aggarwal at bone and joint Surgical Center, Mani Majra, with a view to establish this fact, the petitioner wanted to produce and prove in evidence the discharge slip from the said Centre alongwith medical bills etc. as also by examining Dr. Pradeep Aggarwal. This application was filed under order X111 rule 2 read with order XV111 rule 17-A and section 151 C.P.C. This application has been dismissed, as according to learned tribunal below provisions of order X111 rule 2 and order XV111 rule 17-A C.P.C. are not applicable to the proceedings initiated under section 166 of the motor vehicles act, 1988. 5. When a reference is made to the provisions of motor vehicles act, 1988 as well to the H.P. Motor Vehicles rules, 1999 framed by the state of Himachal Pradesh in exercise of the rule making power vested in it under the provisions of the act, it is clear that the provisions of order X111 rule 2 and order XV111 C.P.C. are inapplicable to the proceedings under section 166 of the motor vehicles act. To this extent, the order of the learned tribunal below suffers from no infirmity. 6. To this extent, the order of the learned tribunal below suffers from no infirmity. 6. Next question that needs to be determined is whether simply on account of non-applicability of these provision of C.P.C. and in the circumstances of the present case, a litigant like the petitioner should be left high any dry as well remedy less? Answer, in my considered view, would be, No. 7. Section 169 of the motor vehicles act deals with the procedure and powers of the claim tribunals, for ready reference this provision is extracted hereinbelow: "169, procedure and powers of claims tribunals: (1) In holding any inquiry under section 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 section 195 and chapter XXV1 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973. (3) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the claims tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating upon for compensation, chose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry." 8. In addition to this, chapter X1 of 1999 rules (supra) deal with the procedure to be followed. Rule 220 relates to summoning of witnesses which is as under:- "220, summoning of witnesses: If any application is presented by any party to the proceeding for the summoning of witnesses, the claims tribunal shall on payment of the expenses involved, if any, issue summons for the appearance of such witness, unless, it considers that the appearance is not necessary for a just decision of the case." 9. Besides this under rule 232 extent of applicability of C.P.C. has also been mentioned which is also extracted herein below: "232. Besides this under rule 232 extent of applicability of C.P.C. has also been mentioned which is also extracted herein below: "232. The code of civil procedure to apply in certain cases: The following provisions of the first schedule of the code of civil procedure, 1908, shall so far as may be, apply to proceedings before the claims tribunal, namely, order v, rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30, order 1X; order X111; rule 3 to 10 order XV1, rules 2 to 21; order XV11; order XX1 and order xx111, rules 1 to 3". 10. At the risk of repetition it may be noted that order X111 rule 2 and order XV111 C.P.C. do not apply to the present case as per rule 232. 11. Accident, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is of 22.7.1999.Therefore the she was admitted in the Indira Gandhi Medical Hospital, Shimla and was discharged for there on 16.11.1999. Claim petition was filed on 16.11.1999. Thereafter, petitioner states she underwent treatment in bona and joint surgical Centre at S.C.O. 822. Chandigarh-Kalka Road, Mani Majra. According to Ms. Prerna Ronta, the petitioner is still under going treatment there. 12. What emerges from the aforesaid facts is that when the claim petition was filed, the documents referred to in the application were not available with the petitioner-claimant. She could not have, therefore, produced those at the time of filing of the claim petition. If a pedantic view is to be taken, then because of non-applicability of the provisions of order X111 rule 2 and order XV111 rule 17-A C.P.C, the petitioner cannot be allowed to produce those documents and/or examine the Doctor. 13. Here, reference to section 169 (1) supra will be of some assistance for determining such a situation. According to it, the tribunal has to follow summary procedure as it thinks fit, subject, of course, to rules those may be made in that behalf. Besides this, rules of procedure including those made applicable and as extracted are hand made for advancing the cause of justice as well as doing substantial justice between the parties. Those cannot be pressed into service with a view to thwart the process of justice to the extent as has been ordered by the learned tribunal below while dismissing the application in question. 14. Those cannot be pressed into service with a view to thwart the process of justice to the extent as has been ordered by the learned tribunal below while dismissing the application in question. 14. In this behalf, it may also be observed that such rules of procedure as well as law of evidence is not strictly applicable to the proceedings before the claim tribunal, there was nothing that prohibited the tribunal to have formulated its own procedure. Every procedure as well as rule of law has to ensure that it achieves the objective of granting justice. In this behalf, it may be noted that prior to coming into force of Motor Vehicles act, 1988, motor vehicles act 1039 was applicable. Looking to the need of the hour as well as taking cue from the decisions of the High court and of Supreme court of India, in the year 1982 sections 92-A to 92-E were added when provision was made for grant of compensation on the principle of "No fault liability: and in cases where vehicle was not traceable and for the grant of compensation on the principle of hit and run. 15. Again, after examining the whole case law as well as other circumstances, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was enacted. Thereunder compensation under No fault liability as initially fixed was enhanced by the legislature by incorporating appropriate amendments in it. So much so, provisions relating to limitation during which a claim petition could be filed were done away with in the year 1994. Liberty was reserved to claimants to file claim petition at the place where they resided, besides the place of accident or where the respondents resided. This was not the position under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. By amendment of 1994 provision is made in 1988 Act to all compensation on structured formulae. 16. All these facts clearly demonstrate that the object sought to be achieved by enacting Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and by making subsequent amendments is that benefit of welfare measure under law need to be extended to the claimants so that they are in a position to get compensation as admissible under law. 17. A document which was not in existence when the claim petition was filed as in the present case, could not have been produced by the petitioner. This aspect of the matter has been totally ignored by the learned tribunal below. 17. A document which was not in existence when the claim petition was filed as in the present case, could not have been produced by the petitioner. This aspect of the matter has been totally ignored by the learned tribunal below. The tribunal had inherent jurisdiction to have entertained the application and then passed appropriate orders as it considered just and proper keeping in view the n facts and circumstances of the case. 18. There is no prohibition either in the act or in the rules framed thereunder prohibiting a litigant like the petitioner to place on f record relevant materials and documents depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. 19. Last but not the least, if impugned order, which is based on non-applicability of the provisions of procedural law is upheld, it will not only result in failure of justice, but will defeat the provisions of law as well. Besides this the view taken in passing the impugned order is too technical, so if it is upheld, it will further defeat the purpose of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly those dealing with the grant of compensation. These are additional reasons to allow this petition. 20. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondent urged that this revision petition is incompetent as according to him there is no jurisdictional error committed by the learned tribunal below while passing the impugned order. This argument has been raised simply to be rejected. Leaving this question to be determined in an appropriate case, I am of the view that even if this plea is accepted for the sake of argument, it is felt that in such a situation, this court is not powerless to keep the tribunal within the bounds of its limits in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly for this purpose, motor accident claims tribunal is subordinate to this court. 21. No other point is urged. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, after admitting this revision petition formally, it is finally disposed of as aforesaid with the direction that the rejection of the application in question by means of impugned order is hereby set aside. At the same time, it is ordered that the documents referred to in application shall be taken on record and shall be allowed to be proved in accordance with law. At the same time, it is ordered that the documents referred to in application shall be taken on record and shall be allowed to be proved in accordance with law. Besides this, the petitioner is also permitted to examine Dr. Pradeep Aggarwal, M.S. (Ortho.), Bone and joint surgical Centre, S.C.O. 822, Chandigarh-Kalka Road, Mani Majra. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned tribunal below forthwith. Registry will also supply a certified copy of this order to the parties on or before April 20,2002 on payment of usual charges.