Honble K.C. AGRAWAL, C.J.—For resolving the conflict as to whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a court subordinate within the meaning of Section 3 of the Code of Civil P ocedure in between two judgments of the Rajasthan High Court, this Bench has been constituted.

2. In Laxmi Narain Mishra V/s Kailash Gupta (1) and R.S.R.T.C. V/s. Kalawati (2) this Court took the view that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was not a civil court subordinate to the High Court and, as such, no revision petition under section 115 C.P.C. lies against an order passed by it.

3. In Dushyant Kumar V/s R.S.R.T.C. (3) the view taken by this Court was that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was a civil court and it is subordinate to the High Court.

4. The controversy centres round a very narrow compass.

5. Ghewarchand-respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand for Rs. 6,60,000 against the petitioner, who was the owner of the vehicle and the respondent Nos. 2&3. The Tribunal passed an order against the petitioner to proceed exparte. An application was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the said order under Order-IXRule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was rejected by the Tribunal on October 31, 1991. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision in the High Court.

6. Before the High Court, the controversy was whether the revision lay or not. The argument of the respondent No. 1 was that as the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was not a court subordinate to the High Court, revision was not competent, whereas the contention of the petitioner was that it was a civil court and it is not only subordinate to the High Court in hierarchy and other administrative matters, but was also subject to its supervision and revisional power.

7. The learned Single Judge found a conflict between the three judgments mentioned above and thus referred the same to a larger Bench which has been constituted to answer the question aforesaid.

8. In exercise of the rale making power conferred by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (IV of 1939), the State Government framed rules known Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunals Rules, 1964. Rule 20 reads as under:-

"R. 20 Code of Civil Procedure to apply in certain cases.

The following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908), shall, as far as may be, apply to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, namely, Order V, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30, Order IX Order XII, Rules 3 to 10; Order XVI, Rules 2 to 21; Order XVII and Order XVIII, Rules 1 to 3."

9. From the above, it would be found that whole of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure has been applied to the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, and as such, the applicati®n filed under Order IX Rule 7 C.P.C. by the petitioner was maintainable. The learned Judge, however, took the view that as Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been applied, the present revision was incompetent.

10. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under :-

S. 115 Revision (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lie thereto, and if such subordinate Court appeals.

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may take such order in the case as it thinks fit:

Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding on issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where-

(a) the order if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding; or

(b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irrepa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document