The main legal point established is that the Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act is not a Court in the technical sense and its orders are not subject to revision under S.115 of the CPC.

1. In this Civil Revision, the respondent in an application for compensation under S 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam challenges the order of the Tribunal, condoning the delay in preferring the claim. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Claims Tribunal is a Court to make its orders amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. A number of decisions were cited at the bar. We will refer to them one by one. In Bharat Bank v.Employees of the Bharat Bank (AIR.1950 SC 188) Kania C. J. has said:

"While the powers of the Industrial Tribunal in some respects are different from those of an ordinary Civil Court and it has jurisdiction and powers to give reliefs which a Civil Court administering the law of the land (for instance ordering the reinstatement of a workman) does not possess in the discharge of its duties it is essentially working as a judicial body Having considered all the provisions of the Act it seems to me clear that the Tribunal is discharging functions very near those of a Court, although it is not a court in the technical sense of the word." . (Para 2)

In Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v.Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwala (AIR. 1961 SC. 1669) Hidyathullah J. (as he then was) has said:

"All tribunals are not Courts, though all Courts are tribunals. The word 'Courts' is used to designate those tribunals which are set up in an organised State for the administration of justice By administration of justice is meant the exercise of judicial power of the State to maintain and uphold rights and to punish wrongs'. Whenever there is an infringement of a right or an injury, the Courts are there to restore the Vinculam juris, which is disturbed." (Para. 30)

In para 32 of the judgment it is also said:

"With the growth of civilisation and the problems of modern life, a large number of administrative tribunals have come into existence. These tribunals have the authority of law to pronounce upon valuable rights; they act in a judicial manner and even on evidence on oath, but they are not part of the ordinary Courts, of Civil judicature. They share the exercise of the judicial power of the State, but they are brought into existence to implement some administrative policy or to determine controversies arising out of some administrative law. They are very similar to Courts, but are not Courts

By 'Courts' is meant Courts of Civil Judicature and by 'tribunals', those bodies of men who are appointed to decide controversies arising under certain special laws.

...Their procedures may differ, but the functions are not essentially different. What distinguishes them has never been successfully established. Lord Stamp said that the real distinction is that courts have 'an air of detachment."

Again in para 36 of the judgment it is said:

"The word 'tribunal' is a word of wide import, and the words 'Court' and 'tribunal' embrace within them the exercise of judicial power in all its forms."

In Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P. N. Sharma (AIR. 1965 SC. 1595) Gajendragadkar C. J. has said:

"It would be noticed that Art.136 (1) refers to a tribunal as distinguished from a Court. The expression 'Court' in the context denotes a tribunal constituted by the State as a part of the ordinary hierarchy of Courts which are invested with the State's inherent judicial powers. A sovereign State discharges legislative, executive and judicial functions and can legitimately claim corresponding powers which are described as legislative, executive and judicial powers. Under our Constitution, the judicial functions and powers of the State are primarily conferred on the ordinary Courts which have been constituted under its relevant provisions. The Constitution recognised a hierarchy of Courts and to their adjudication are normally entrusted all disputes between citizens and citizens as well as between the citizens and the State. These Courts can be described as ordi