The question raised for decision is whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal) constituted under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act) is invested with the power to order attachment of property before passing the award.

2. Respondents 2 to 5 are the legal representatives of one Viswambharan who died in a motor vehicle accident on 14.2004. According to the respondents 2 to 5, the motor cycle which the petitioner was riding in a rash and negligent manner hit Viswambharan. Respondents 2 to 5 filed application before the Tribunal claiming Rs.3 lakhs from the petitioner. Since the motor cycle was not having a valid policy of insurance, claim was lodged only against the petitioner. Along with the application, respondents 2 to 5 filed Ext.P1, I.A.No.2957 of 2008 for attachment of the immovable property allegedly belonging to the petitioner. As per Ext.P2, order dated 19.6.2008 learned Tribunal directed the petitioner to show cause why he should not furnish security for the amount claimed and placed the property under conditional attachment. That order is under challenge in this proceeding.

3. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, power under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code) has not been extended to the Tribunal, exercise of power under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code is not merely procedural, it affected the substantive right of the petitioner and hence, the Tribunal could not exercise that power. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Cheru Ouseph v. Kunjipathumma (1981 KLT 495). He also referred to me the meaning of the word ‘substantive in the Law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha Aiyar. Learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 per contra, contended that all powers conferred on a civil court under the Code, required to be exercised to render justice to the parties before the Tribunal and the exercise of which is not expressly or by necessary implication excluded could be exercised by the Tribunal. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi (AIR 1979 SC 855), Mansingh Sajjusingh v. Sudhir Ganpatrao Girdhari (1986 ACJ 828), United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

.v. George (1987 (2) KLT 776), Velunni v. Vellakutty (1989 (2) KLT 227), Mathew Mathai v. General Manager, K.S.R.T.C.(1989 (2) KLJ 251), Krishan Reddy v. K.Ramulamma (1995 ACJ 1097), Rajan

.v. Sukumaran(1997 (1) KLT 686), Laxmansingh v. Parmanand Damani (2003 ACJ 1214) and Duvvuru Siva Kumar Reddy v. Malli Srinivasulu (2007 ACJ 448).

4. It is by Section165 of the Act that Tribunals are constituted for such area as specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles or damage to any property of third parties so arising, or both. Section 169 of the Act deals with the Procedure and powers of Claims Tribunal and states :-

"(1) In holding any inquiry under Section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit.

.(2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

.(3) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Claims Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claim for compensation, choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of any matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry."

Section 175 of the Act deals with the bar on jurisdiction of Civil Courts a