Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. KN Bhattacharjee, the learned Senior Central Govt Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioners herein Hied an application claiming compensation for the death of their predecessor who died on 12.8.87 in a motor accident. The said claim petition was filed on 31.8.96 with an application for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition before the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Kailashahar. The same was registered as Title Suit (MACT) No. 18 of 1996.

3. After hearing the petitioners, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejected the application for condonation vide his order dated 24.5.97 holding that the condonation application is barred by limitation and as such not maintainable as no ground for delay was given. The petitioners have come to this Court challenging the aforesaid order of the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by filing the present application under section 115 of CPC.

4. In course of hearing the learned counsel of both the parties have submitted various decisions of different High Courts on the point as to whether the petition under section 115 of CPC will be held maintainable before this Court against an order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

“5. Even the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited two decisions of the Apex Court. In the case of State of Haryana, vs. Darshana Devi & others, reported in AC J1979 205 the Apex Court held that provisions of Order XXXin of CPC should be made available so that indigent persons may claim for motor accident claims without filing any court fees, and further the Apex Court observed that the appropriate legislation was to be framed to enable the claimants to file compensation petition without payment of court fees.

6. In the second case ie in the case of Bhagwati Devi & others vs. M/s IS Goel & others reported in 1983 ACJ 123, the Apex Court following the decision passed in the former case ie Darshana Devi (supra) held that the provision of section 25 of the CPC was held applicable and as such the Supreme Court transferred a case pending in a Tribunal at Moradabad to another Claims Tribunal at Delhi in exercise of powers under section 115 of CPC.

7. Further, the learned counsel of both sides have submitted, as stated above, the decisions of various other High Courts passed in different cases holding that certain provisions of CPC are applicable whereas some other High Courts passed orders holding that provisions of CPC are not strictly applicable.

8. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act are not Court, but they have the trappings of the Court. Powers of the Tribunal are conferred and defined by the statute and the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal and the procedures are also prescribed by law, or in absence thereof in the statute, the Tribunal regulates it on procedure. Section 169 of 1988 Act describes the powers and procedures of the Tribunal and again under section 176 the State Govt is empowered to make rules for the matters as mentioned in the section. But even if the Tribunals are exercising powers of civil Court or the same of the procedures prescribed under CPC the Tribunal constituted under Motor Vehicles Act is still a Tribunal and not a civil Court. Again, rules and revision are matters of statute. The appellate and revisional power cannot be assured or presumed in a absence of any specific provisions in the statute. But, I am not inplined to delve into the matter regarding the point as to whether section 115 of CPC is applicable in respect of an order passed by Claims Tribunal for the reasons stated below.

9. In the present case, as stated above, the accident took place on 12.8.1987 and the claim petition along with an application for condonation was filed on 31.8.96. Admittedly taking into consideration the date of accident, as provided for under s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document