The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a Civil Court and is subordinate to the High Court under Section 115, C. P. C. The provisions of the C. P. C. can be applied to the proceedings before the Tribunal if necessary to ensure justice.

D. L. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated, 27th May, 1988 passed by the learned District Judge, Jhalawar, in Motor Accident Claims No. 16/86.

( 2 ) MR. Gupta appearing on behalf of the non-petitioner with all vehemence at his command submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not a Civil Court, but it is a Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles, Act, as such, is not subordinate to the High Court under Section 115, C. P. C. and the revision petition does not lie. On the other hand, Mr. Subhash Jindal appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a Civil Court and revision petition does lie under Section 115, C. P. C.

( 3 ) I have heard the rival contentions of both the parties.

( 4 ) IT is necessary to consider the meaning of the word "civil Court".

( 5 ) THERE is a real distinction that it may often be found to define the Tribunal and the Court. The distinction exists irrespective of whether a person constituting Tribunal is a Judge of the Court of appeal is provided for the orders of the Tribunal to the High Court. A Tribunal is not clothed with the powers of the Court and the orders of the Tribunal are of limited jurisdiction and are open to judicial review. It will not be out of place here to state that it is necessary to understand the powers conferred on the authority by the provisions of the Statute. When a question is raised as to whether an authority constituted under a particular statute is an, administrative body or Tribunal discharging the functions of the judicial character or a Court, the answer will be that the Court must find out from the statute itself and other relevant laws what are the powers and functions of the authority so created under a particular statute. The nomenclature is not of importance. Court constituted for deciding purely civil questions between the persona seeking their civil rights must be considered to be Civil Court, notwithstanding that they are created by a special statute and are mentioned in the statute as distinct from the Civil Court. It will not be out of place here to mention that originally the case falling within the purview of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal used to fall under torts or fatal accidents Act. Claims Tribunals were constituted for the efficacious disposal of the Motor Accident Claims. The general law applicable earlier was only the common law and the law of Torts. Earlier the concept of owners liability without any negligence was considered as opposed to the basic principles of the common law. It was considered by the Legislature that a pedestrian or any other person sustaining an injury should also be compensated without the proof of negligence of the Driver driving the vehicle and the provisions relating to the no fault liability were included in the Motor Vehicles Act. Composite and contributory negligence cases also fall within the purview of the Tribunal. Thus, the Tribunal adjudicated the rights of the injured in the matter of grant of compensation which he is entitled under the law, may be also under the law of Torsts to get on account of injury sustained by him. This part of the function of the Tribunal adjudicating civil rights of the parties is a function of the Civil Court. In fact, prior to 1966 suits were instituted in the Civil Court and compensation was awarded. New efficacious machinery has been provided under the amended law to meet the ends of the requirements of the society as to provide effective and efficacious machinery having the powers of the Court to deal with all class of case just like a Special Court. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal adjudicates the rights of civil nature between the injured and the owner of the vehicle including the Insurance Company and the Driver who was driving the vehicle.

( 6 ) MR. Gupta invited my attention to the decision of this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v