A Claims Tribunal is not a court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

1. The appellants herein made an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the M.V. Act') and sought for compensation for the death of Arun Kanti Paul, husband of the claimant-appellant No. 1 and father of the claimants-appellant Nos. 2 and 3, the death of the said deceased having occurred in a motor vehicular accident on 1.6.1997. This application gave rise to T.S. (MAC) No. 8G of 1998. By award, dated 12.5.2000, 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 claimants-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 claimants-appellants, that in the face of the decisions of this High Court, in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others v. Rejina Begum & Others, reported in 2005 (1) GLT 1 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sukla Deb Nath and Others, reported in 2004 (I) 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 & Others, 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, (i) 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 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whether an award, which is appealable within the meaning of section 173 of the MV Act, can be interfered with, in revision, by taking recourse to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ; and (iii) even if th