SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Gau) 856

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AGARTALA BENCH)
Iqbal Ahmed Ansari and A.B. Pal, JJ.
Rekha Paul and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 03 of 2004
Decided On: 12.09.2006

Advocates appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Somik Deb, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: K. Bhattacharjee, Adv.

A Claims Tribunal is not a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the CPC.

Headnote:

The High Court held that a Claims Tribunal is not a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court analyzed the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and the CPC to determine the subordination of Courts under Section 115 of the CPC. It noted that the Claims Tribunal is a specialized tribunal created under the MV Act to adjudicate claims arising from motor vehicle accidents. The Court found that the Claims Tribunal is not a regular Civil Court as it does not exercise all the powers of a Civil Court under the CPC. The Court also noted that the MV Act provides for a specific appellate mechanism for the awards of the Claims Tribunal, indicating that the legislature did not intend for the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction over such awards under Section 115 of the CPC. The Court concluded that treating the Claims Tribunal as a Court subordinate to the High Court would defeat the legislative intent behind the creation of the Tribunal and would lead to an anomalous situation where the exclusionary provisions of the MV Act would be rendered meaningless.

Fact of the Case:

None

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that a Claims Tribunal is not a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the CPC. The Court found that the Claims Tribunal is not a regular Civil Court as it does not exercise all the powers of a Civil Court under the CPC. The Court also noted that the MV Act provides for a specific appellate mechanism for the awards of the Claims Tribunal, indicating that the legislature did not intend for the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction over such awards under Section 115 of the CPC.

Issues: Whether a Claims Tribunal is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the CPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court analyzed the scheme of the MV Act and the CPC to determine the subordination of Courts under Section 115 of the CPC. It noted that the Claims Tribunal is a specialized tribunal created under the MV Act to adjudicate claims arising from motor vehicle accidents. The Court found that the Claims Tribunal is not a regular Civil Court as it does not exercise all the powers of a Civil Court under the CPC. The Court also noted that the MV Act provides for a specific appellate mechanism for the awards of the Claims Tribunal, indicating that the legislature did not intend for the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction over such awards under Section 115 of the CPC.

Final Decision: The Court held that a Claims Tribunal is not a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the CPC.

JUDGMENT

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. The Appellants herein made an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'the M.V. Act') sought for compensation for the death of Arun Kanti Paul, husband of the claimant-Appellant No. 1 and father of the claimant-Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, the death of the said deceased having occurred in a motor vehicle accident on 01.06.1997. This application gave rise to T.S. (MAC) No. 86 of 1998. By award, dated 12.05.2000, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, granted, in all, compensation of Rs. 19,27,000/- in favour of the claimants. The insurer impugned the said award by making an application under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking, inter alia, a writ of certiorari setting aside the award. This writ application gave rise to W.P.(C) No. 316 of 2000. When the claimants resisted the writ petition on the ground that the writ petition filed by the insurer was misconceived and not maintainable, the insurer sought for an order converting the said writ petition into a revision petition. By order, dated 24.11.2003, passed in W.P.(C) No. 316 of 2000, the writ petition was converted into a revision petition and the same has accordingly come to be registered as CRP No. 81 of 2003. Dissatisfied with the order, so passed, on 24.11.2003, the claimants have preferred the present writ appeal.

2. We have heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned Counsel for the claimant-Appellants, and Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the insurer-Respondent.

3. At the time of hearing of the present writ appeal, it has been pointed out, on behalf; of the claimant-Appellants, that in the face of the decisions of this High Court, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Rejina Begum and Ors. reported in 2005(1) GLT 1 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sukla Deb Nath and Ors. reported in 2004(1) GLT 497, revision against final award of a Tribunal, constituted under Section 165 of the M.V. Act, is not maintainable.

4. Controverting the above submissions made, on behalf of the claimants-Appellants, Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the insurer-Respondent, has, relying upon a Division Bench decision, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mustt. Abeda Begum and Ors. reported in 2005 (2) GLT 571, has submitted that the Claims Tribunal having been held, in Mustt. Abeda Begum (Supra), as a Court subordinate to the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, an award, passed by a Claims Tribunal, is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. Reacting to the submissions made, on behalf of the insurer-Respondent, Mr. Deb, learned Counsel for the claimants-Appellants, has contended that a Claims Tribunal is not a Court, subordinate to High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the decision of the Division Bench, in Mustt. Abeda Begum (supra), needs to have a re-look by this Court so as to lay down the correct position of law in this regard. It is also contended by Mr. Deb that at any rate, when the award rendered, on an application made under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, is an appealable award under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, no revision, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, lies against such an award.

6. From the submissions, as noted hereinabove, it is clear that three questions, broadly speaking, fall for determination in the present writ appeal, namely, whether a Claims Tribunal is a Court, subordinate to High Court, within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (ii) even if the Claims Tribunal is subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115of the Code of Civil Procedure, whether an award, which is appealable within the meaning of Section173 of the MV Act, can be interfered with, in revision, by taking recourse to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and (iii) ever if th



















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top