JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J. :---By this writ petition filed under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking to challenge the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Buldana on 14-3-1995 rejecting the application filed by the applicant for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 1-3-1993.

2. On 5-4-1995 when the writ petition came up for motion hearing, Mr Khapre, the learned Counsel for petitioner prayed for time to study the matter whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a 'Court subordinate' under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the 'C.P.C.') and if so, whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner could be entertained or not. On 17-7-1995 the notice before admission was issued to the respondents and in response thereto, Mr. A.S. Jaiswal, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.

3. According to Mr. Khapre, the learned Counsel for petitioner, in exercise of the powers provided under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the State Government has framed the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Rule 276 of the said rules provides procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunal while holding enquiries. Mr. Khapre submits that under Rule 276 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, the 'Rules of 1989'), there is no reference of section 115 of C.P.C. and, therefore, even if the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is treated as Court subordinate to the High Court, in the absence of specific applicability of section 115 and section 141 C.P.C., no revision would lie before this Court under section 115 C.P.C. Mr. Khapre submits that in the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 (for short, the 'Appellate Side Rules, 1960'), procedure is prescribed pertaining to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Rule 18 of Chapter XVII, particularly items (3) and (34), the decrees and orders passed by any subordinate Court in any suit or proceeding including suits and proceedings under any special or local laws and the orders passed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, could be challenged in writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the writ petition could be entertained.

4. Though amongst various High Courts there was difference of opinion as to whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is persona designeta or the Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 115 C.P.C., but after the Apex Court in (State of Haryana v. Smt. Darshana Devi others)1, A.I.R 1979 S.C. 855, observed that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has the trappings of the Civil Court, the later decisions of various High Courts are consistent that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, for all intents and purposes, is Court subordinate to the High Court and has trappings of Civil Court and amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 C.P.C. I fully agree with the view that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not a persona-designeta but a Court subordinate to the High Court under section 115 C.P.C.

5. In (Smt. Afsari Begum others v. The Oriental Fire General Insurance Co. Ltd. others)2, 1979 All. L.J. 1168, the Allahabad High Court has held as under:---

"It is, thus evident that the Claims Tribunal being a Civil Court was amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 C.P.C., because it was a Court subordinate to the High Court."

6. The Full Bench of the Patna High Court in (Anirudh Prasad Ambasta others v. State of Bihar another)3, A.I.R. 1990 Patna 49, while dealing with the question, whether the Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act is a Court subordinate to the High Court, thus observed :---

"23. Apart from the principles noticed above, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Smt. Darshana Devi, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 855 (supra) and Smt. Bhagwati Devi, 1989 ACC. C.J. 123

Click Here to Read the rest of this document