AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish Chandra, C.J.—A learned single Judge of this Court has referred the following question of law to a larger Bench:
Whether the Claims Tribunal constituted u/s 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act is a civil court and a revision application u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against an order passed by it in the course of proceedings before it, would lie?
The Petitioner before us applied before the Claims Tribunal u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation amounting to Rs. 93,000/-on account of the death of Irshad Khan in an accident on October 26,1970. During the pendency of the claim petition, the Petitioner applied for amendment of the petition. Originally the number of the truck involved in the accident was UPA 1766. The amendment application said that by a clerical mistake the number was wrongly mentioned. The correct number was UPU 1766. This amendment application was, however, dismissed on the ground that the amendment changed the nature of the case. Aggrieved, the claim Petitioner came to this Court in revision.
At its hearing, a preliminary objection was taken that no revision lay because the Claims Tribunal was not a civil court subordinate to the High Court within meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support, reliance was placed on a single Judge decision of this Court in Satish Chandra and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1970 AWR 875. In that case, it was held that the Claims Tribunal was not a court subordinate to the High Court. The learned single Judge hearing the revision found himself unable to agree with the decision. He hence referred the question to a larger Bench.
Section 110-D confers appellate jurisdiction on the High Court against awards made by the Claims Tribunal provided the amount in dispute in the appeal is not less than Rs. 2,000/-it is thus apparent that the legislature has conferred appellate jurisdiction on the High Court against awards made by the Claims Tribunal. It has not been disputed that the Claims Tribunal is, in the eye of law, a court exercising civil jurisdiction. If the tribunal is a civil court it cannot be gainsaid that it was a civil court subordinate to the High Court.
It has been stated by the Supreme Court that revisional jurisdiction possessed by the High Court is a part of its appellate jurisdiction (See Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar Vs. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat, . In that case, it was observed:
Section 115 of the CPC circumscribes the limits of the jurisdiction but the jurisdiction which is being exercised is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior court. It is only one of the modes of exercising power conferred by the Statute, basically and fundamentally it is the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court which is being invoked and exercised in a wider and larger sense.
It is thus evident that the Claims Tribunal being a Civil Court was amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 115 of the CPC because it was a court subordinate to the High Court.
We, therefore, answer the question referred to us by holding that a revision u/s 115 of the CPC is maintainable against the order passed by the Claims Tribunal on the ground that such a tribunal is a court subordinate to, the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Let the papers be returned to the single Judge with this opinion and answer.