( 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 Pra