ORDER : This is a revision petition under Section 115(c) of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 8(2)(b)(i) of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Judicial Commissioner's Court) Regulation, 1963.

2. The case of the petitioner company is that the respondent filed an application for compensation under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 claiming compensation of Rs. 16,000/- on account of the death of her husband, who met with a fatal car accident on 31st March, 1966. The application filed by the respondent was after the period of limitation prescribed under sub-clause (3) of this section but because of the operation of the proviso, the Claims Tribunal condone the delay. It was satisfied that the respondent was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. This order was passed on 20th November, 1967. The petitioner company felt that the discretion under the provision was not properly exercised and consequently moved this Court in revision petition.

3. Shri William Gomes, learned counsel for the petitioner company, is asked to satisfy this Court whether the Claims Tribunal can be regarded as a Court for the purposes of Section 115(c) of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 8(2)(b)(i) of the Goa, Daman and Diu (Judicial Commissioner's Court) Regulation, 1963. Section 115 (c) provides that the High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit. Section 8(2)(b)(i) of the 1963 Regulation promulgated by the President provides that without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of S. 8(1), this Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by a subordinate Court and in which no appeal lies to it, and if such subordinate Court acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregularity it may make such order in the case as it thinks fit. The scope of these provisions has been explained by this Court at length in 'Ramanata Camotim Bambolcar v. The learned Judge of Comarca Court of Ilhas Panjim, AIR 1966 Goa 1. Shri Gomet contends that the Claims Tribunal is a subordinate Court. He invites my attention to the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 110(1) of this Act provides for constitution of a Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal is empowered to adjudicate upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, person arising out of the use of motor vehicles. Section 110B enables the Claims Tribunal to make an award after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard. Section 110C relates to procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal. Sub-Section (1) of this section states that the Claims Tribunal may follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf. Sub-S. (2) mentions powers of the claims Tribunal. Under this provision the Claims Tribunal has all the powers of a Civil Court for the purposes 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. It also provides that the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-Section (3) enables the Claims Tribunal to choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of any matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry into the claims for compensation. Section 110D provides for an appeal to the High Court. Any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court within the period of limitation prescribed therein. By employing the deeming provision the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document