( 1 ) SRI Narayana Reddy learned counsel for the respondent 1 raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the revision. He contends that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under S. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act 4 of 1939) for short, the Act , is not a court subordinate to High Court amenable to jurisdiction under S. 115 of the C. P. C. In support thereof, he placed reliance on Revanappa v. Guderao (1) AIR 1983 Kant. 164. Admittedly under the Act, there is no special procedure provided for disposal of the O. Ps. The District Court is constituted as a Tribunal to decide the claims under the Act. The procedure under the C. P. C. is to be followed. It is now well established that no special procedure has, been prescribed and the claims under special statutes are to be adjudicated by regular court as a Tribunal, all the incidents provided under the Code of Civil Procedure would follow. This view has been consistently followed by this court starting from The Public Prosecutor v. Ramayya (2) 1975 Cri LJ 144 (FB) and catena of decisions subsequent thereto. Ramayya s ratio was approved by the Supreme Court in Thakur Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1978 SC 1. In Ramayya s case as stated earlier, the District Judge is constituted as a regular Tribunal but not as persons designate under the Act. He has to follow the procedure prescribed in trying the cases, under the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the Tribunal is a court subordinate to High Court and amenable to revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 C. P. C. The ratio on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel, viz. , Revanappa s case (AIR 1983 Kant 164) (supra), I am unable to accede and with due respect, I dissent from the view taken in that case. Accordingly, I hold that the CRPS. are maintainable.

( 2 ) SRI Venkat Reddy, learned standing counsel for the insurance company, contends that the capacity of the van is seven. Whereas the passengers carried in it were seventeen. The deceased have contributed for the accident and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to the full compensation but only a proportionate rate. Unfortunately, no plea was taken before the Tribunal below; no issue has been cast and no evidence is recorded in that regard. Therefore, for the first time, this point cannot be urged in this court.

( 3 ) IT is next contended that the deaths were on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver and also due to overloading. The Tribunal below has considered the entire evidence and recorded the finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving as a result, precious lives have been lost. This is a finding of, fact based on appreciation of evidence and there is no illegality or error of jurisdiction warranting interference.

( 4 ) THE CRPs. are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Revisions dismissed.