The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) is not a Court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of Section 115 CPC, and therefore, Civil Revision Petitions under Section 115 CPC are not maintainable against the orders and awards passed by the MACT.

( 1 ) BOTH the Civil Revision Petitions are preferred by Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the common judgment and order dated 05th February, 2003 passed in Review Petition Nos. 55 of 2002 and 54 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, and MACT, Raichur, for short, the MACT. Hence both the Civil Revision Petitions were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) CIVIL Revision Petition No. 1217 of 2003 is directed against the judgment in Review Petition No. 55 of 2002 whereas Civil Revision Petition No. 1022 of 2003 is directed against the judgment in Review Petition No. 54 Of 2002. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are filed before this Court under Section 115 of CPC. Review Petition Nos. 54 and 55 of 2002 were preferred by the Insurance Company before the MACT under Order 457, Rule 1, CPC seeking review of the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 639 of 1998 and MVC No. 640 of 1998, allowing the claim petition of the respondent-herein filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short, the Act for compensation on the ground that the awards were obtained by the claimants by playing fraud. There was delay in preferring the Review Petitions. Therefore, the Insurance Company had filed application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the Review Petitions. The respondent-claimants opposed the Review Petitions by filing Statement of Objections. The MACT by the impugned judgment and order dated 5th February, 2003, dismissed both the Review Petitions on the ground of delay as well as on merits. The Insurance Company being aggrieved by the above judgment of the MACT have preferred Civil Revision Petitions under Section 115 of CPC.

( 3 ) WE have heard Smt. Nagarathna, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners and Sri Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents.

( 4 ) AT the threshold of the hearing, Sri Basvaprabhu S. Patil, learned counsel for the claimants would contend that these CRPs are not maintainable in the light of the judgment of Five-Judge Bench pf this Court in UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY V. M/s MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD. , BHADRAVATHI (ILR 2003 KAR 4155) whereas, Smt Nagarathna, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would maintain that CRPs are maintainable in the light of the judgment of Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. CHANDIGARH V. NICOLETTA ROHTAGI AND OTHERS ( (2002)7 SCC 456 ). Therefore, it becomes necessary for us to decide the question of maintainability at the threshold. Therefore, we heard learned counsel for the parties on maintainability of Civil Revision Petitions.

( 5 ) SMT. Nagarathna, drawing our attention to what the Apex Court in paragraph-31 has observed in NICOLETTA ROHTAGIs case (supra2), would contend that since the impugned award obtained by the claimants is vitiated on account of fraud, the revision petitions filed by the Insurance Company against the order of the MACT passed in Review Petitions are maintainable. Elaborating the contention, Smt. Nagarathna would contend that since the procedure envisaged under the CPC is applicable for adjudicating the rights of the parties under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the legal remedies provided to the parties under the CPC should be extended to aggrieved parties in working out their rights under the Motor Vehicles Act also.

( 6 ) SMIT. Nagarathna would submit that under Order 47, Rule 7, CPC an appeal is provided against an order granting review, but no appeal is provided against an order of the Court rejecting the Review Application and since the Review Petitions filed by the Insurance Company are rejected by the MACT, the Insurance Company cannot prefer appeals against the rejection order and the only remedy available to it is to approach this Court by way of revision under Section 115 of CPC. Sri Basavaprabhu S. Patil, per contra, would contend that