JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)These two civil revision petitions are
preferred against the order dt.
12 . 8 . 1980 passed by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bidar.
in M.V.C. Nos. 7 and 8 of 1979
rejecting the applications filed by the
petitioner for amendment of the objections.
(2.)It is contended by Sri. M.M.
Jagirdar, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, that the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Claims Tribunal" constituted under Sec. 110 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act') is a Tribunal and it is not
a 'Court' subordinate to the High Court;
therefore, the jurisdiction of the High
Court under Section 115 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code')
cannot be either invoked or exercised.
The learned Counsel has, in support of
his contention, placed reliance on the
following decisions:
(1) 1973 (2) Kar.L.J. 473 [State
of Mysore -v- K. L. Subbanna];
(2) AIR 1974 Rajastan, 55
[Laxminarain Misra v. Kailash
Narain Gupta & Ors.];
(3) AIR 1977 Rajastan, 236
[Rajastan Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. Kalawati & Ors.]
(4) AIR 1968 Goa, 78 [Branch
Manager, The British India Gen. Insurance Co., Ltd., v. .Chandi Shaikh
Abdulkadar]
(5) AIR 1961 S.C. 1669 [Harinagar Sugar Mills v. Shyam Sundar]
(6) AIR 1965 S.C. 1595 [Associciated Cement Companies Ltd., v.
P.N. Sharma & Anr.]
(7) 1980 ACJ 287 [Beeran v.
Rajappan] (Kerala)
(8) 1966 ACJ 37 Khairunnissa
A.K. Saddiki & Ors. v. The Municipal Corporation, Bombay & Ors.
It is furtther submitted by Sri.
Jagirdar that this Court has already
decided that "Claims Tribunal" is a
Tribunal and not a Court; therefore,
the Civil revision petitions are not
maintainable.
(3.)On the contrary, it is contended
by Sri. Shivaraj Patil, learned Counsel
for the petitioner in both the civil revision petitions
that in the earlier decision of this court in State
of Mysore. v. K.L. Subbanna, (1) no
reasons are contained and the decisions of the other High Courts in which
a contrary view is expressed have
also not been brought to the
notice of the Court, therefore, the
question requires to be reconsidered.
It is further submitted that though the
authority is called "Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal", but nevertheless, it
exercises and performs judicial powers
and functions and it exercises all the
powers 01 a civil court for the purpose
of taking evidence; and it has got the
authority to adjudicate finally the
claims for compensation falling under
its purview and as such, it has got all
the trappings of a civil court; therefore it is a civil
court and not a Tribunal. It is also further submitted that
Claims Tribunal apart from being a
Civil Court is also a court subordinate
to the High Court, inasmuch as the appellate jurisdiction is exercised by the
High Court as an appeal lies to the
High Court against an award of a
Claims Tribunal; hence, the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code,
can he exercised. In support of these
contentions, the learned counsel has
placed reliance on the following decisions:
(3) 1971 A.C.J. 247 (Shanti
Devi v. General Manager, Haryana
Roadways). (Punjab & Haryana)
(2) 1971 A.C.J. 156 (Hukam
Chand Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Subhashini Roy & Anr.) Calcutta)
(3) 1971 A.C.J. 367 (Eagle Star
Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. L. V.
Kumar) (Delhi).
(4) 1971 A.C.J. 372 (Krishna
Gopal and Ors. v. Dattatrya)= AIR
1972 M.P. 125 (Madhya Pradesh)
(5) 1975 A.C.J. 433 (Kishen
Chand Wadhmal v. K.M. Satwani
& Anr.) (Gujarat).
(6) AIR 1978 Punjab & Haryana
265 (Smt. Darshana Devi & Ors
v. Sher Singh and others).
(7) AIR 1970 Bom. 278 (Smt.
Rajiyabi Oosman Sayi & Anr. v.
Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. (P)
Ltd.) = 1970 ACJ 350.
(8) AIR 1970 S.C. 1 (Shankar
Ramachandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatrya Bapat)
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.