A Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable before a Division Bench of the High Court from a judgment of a single Judge passed under Sec. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the same comes within the purview of the word Judgment within the meaning of Clause 10 of its Letters Patent.

S.B.Sinha, J.

1. This appeal raises a question as to whether a Letters Patent Appeal lies to this court in terms of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, before a Division Bench from the decision of a learned single Judge of this court, when the same arises out of a decision of a Tribunal or court constituted under a self-contained code.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. Respondent No. 1 had filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Hazaribagh in terms of Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called and referred to for the sake of brevity as the said Act) alleging, inter alia, therein that while he was walking on Pugmal Road in the town of Hazaribagh at about 3.30 p.m. on 3.10.1986, a bus bearing registration No. BRM 8463, owned by appellant No. 1 and driven by appellant No. 2, came in a high speed and owing to rash and negligent driving on the part of appellant No. 2, an accident occurred as a result whereof respondent No. 1 fell down and suffered bodily injuries. According to the said respondent, his legs were crushed under the wheels of the vehicle. The respondent claimed a sum of Rs. 3,84,000.00 by way of compensation.

3. Mr. Bharat Prasad Sharma, Additional Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh by his judgment and award dated 12.5.1987 passed in Miscellaneous Claim Case No. 6 of 1987 on the basis of the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs. 2,57,800.00 in favour of respondent No. 1 by way of compensation for the bodily injuries suffered by the said respondent in the aforementioned accident.

4. The appellants being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award preferred an appeal in this court in terms of Sec. 110-D of the said Act which was marked as Miscellaneous Appeal No. 64 of 1988 (R). By an order dated 11.10.1988, a learned single Judge of this court dismissed the said appeal in limine without assigning any reason. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the said order of the learned single Judge dated 11.10.1988 passed in the aforementioned Misc. Appeal No. 64 of 1988 (R).

5. In this appeal, the appellants filed an application for stay of realisation of the awarded amount pending in Certificate Case No. 1 of 1989-90 of the court of the District Certificate Officer, Hazaribagh, which came under the heading for orders and by order dated 18.7.1989, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it was considered desirable to dispose of the entire appeal on its merits. By order dated 18.7.1989, this appeal was posted for hearing on 26.7.1989. Thereafter the appeal was heard on merits and is being disposed of by this judgment.

6. In this appeal, a question has been raised as to whether the said Act being a self-contained code, a Letters Patent Appeal in terms of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court is maintainable.

7. Mr. B.K. Dey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Mr. G. Mustafa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, contended that the said Act being a self-contained code and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal being a Tribunal, the provisions contained in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court cannot be said to have any application whatsoever. Learned counsel in this connection placed strong reliance upon a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Upadhyaya Hargovind Devshanker V/s. Dhirendrasinh Vir-bhadrasinhji Solanki AIR 1988 SC 915.

8. Mr. B.K. Dey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, further submitted that a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is a Tribunal and not a court. In this connection the learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Nagar Sugar Mills V/s. Shyam Sunder AIR 1961 SC 1669 and Beeran V/s. Rajappan 1980 ACJ 287 (Kerala).

9. He has further submitted that the right of appeal from a judgment and award passed by the Tribunal has been conferred u