Report No. 85
7.4. Difficulties created by section 110(1), proviso.-
The proviso to section 110(1), quoted above, creates difficulties1 where the claim exceeds Rs. 2;000. The claimant can, in such cases, "refer the claim to the civil court for adjudication", under the proviso as it now stands. The choice of the forum thus lies with the claimant. Such a procedure creates practical difficulties and complications, in this particular case. The practical difficulties and complications arise from the fact that if the claimant decides to "refer the claim to a civil court for adjudication", then two parallel proceedings in respect of the same accident would be going on at two different places. Several common questions of fact or law may arise in such proceedings and these questions may be decided differently in the parallel proceedings. This is not a satisfactory situation.
It should not be left to a claimant to decide the nature of the Tribunal in which he will proceed if such a course is likely to create scope for conflicting decisions. It is true that certain laws,-e.g. the Act providing for workmen's compensation-leave it open to the workman to pursue his claim either in the ordinary court or before the commissioner. But that Act does not contemplate the filing of parallel proceedings in different Tribunals that may possibly lead to conflicting decisions. Only one proceeding can be filed. In contract, under the Motor Vehicles Act, if the claimant chooses to approach the civil court, the claim for personal injury would be under adjudication in a Claims Tribunal, while the claim for damage to property (exceeding Rs. 2,000) would go on in the civil court. The possibility of conflicting adjudications is obvious; such a conflict (between the ordinary court and the Claims Tribunal) is bound to create confusion.
1. Para. 7.3, supra.