B. N. MALLIKARJUNA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner regarding office objection. The objection is that the revision under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code directed against the order of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal is not maintainable in view of the decision of this court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Thibbegowda, 2000 ACJ 438 (Karnataka ).

( 2 ) IN this revision, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in M. V. C. No. 413 of 1995 on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and m. A. C. T. at Dharwad have called in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 6. 10. 1998 awarding compensation of Rs. 9,370 to the claimant. Respondent No. 1 herein is the claimant. In Thibbegowda's case, 2000 ACJ 438 (Karnataka), a learned single Judge of this court has held that a revision under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against an order/award of the M. A. C. T. is not maintainable for the reason that Motor accidents Claims Tribunal is not a 'civil court' or 'court subordinate to High Court' for the purpose of section 115. In Noreen R. Srikantaiah v. L. Dasarath Ramaiah, 1985 acj 628 (Karnataka), Division Bench of this court while considering the scope and purport of section 24 of Civil Procedure code has held that Motor Accidents Claims tribunal constituted and established under the Motor Vehicles Act is a court subordinate to the High court for the purpose of section 24 of the Code. But the learned single Judge while deciding the controversy in Thibbegowda's case, declines to follow the said decision of the Division Bench in noreen's case holding that the declaration of law by the Division Bench in that case is per incuriam and it may be ignored as it has no binding force as a precedent. Learned single Judge further holds that an aggrieved party in such matters could avail any other remedy which may be available to him under law, whether under Constitution or otherwise as advised by his counsel and it will be open to the other side to raise such objections as well to the maintainability of those revisions.

( 3 ) SECTION 24 of Civil Procedure Code empowers the District Court or the High court to transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it to any other court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the said matter. It also permits the District Court or the High court to withdraw any suit, appeal or any other proceeding pending before any court subordinate to it and try or dispose of the same or to transfer the same for trial or disposal to any other court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, etc.

( 4 ) SECTION 115 of Civil Procedure Code empowers the High Court to call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to it and in which no appeal is provided and on being satisfied that the said order suffers either from illegality or material irregularity and in certain other specified circumstances, make such order in the case as it thinks fit. In both the sections, it is significant to note that the 'court' referred to is the court subordinate to the High Court. Besides section 24 of the Code also empowers the District court to withdraw and transfer the matters pending before the court subordinate to it.

( 5 ) THE Division Bench of this court in noreen's case, 1985 ACJ 628 (Karnataka), after referring to all those decisions on the point as on that day including certain decisions of the Apex Court, High Court of punjab and Haryana and this court has held that Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act is court subordinate to High Court for the purpose of section 24 of Civil Procedure code. In view of the language or the phrase used in both sections 24 and 115 of Civil procedure Code, and in view of the decision of the Division Bench, we can safely conclude that Motor Accidents Claims tribunal established under section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is also a court subordi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document