Jurisdiction of High Court to transfer claim petition to another Tribunal.

This is a petition to transfer M.O.P. No. 514/87 from the file of the District Court, Vellore to the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Madras.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of this petition it is stated that the petitioners and 1st respondent are all residents of Madras.

The 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry. The 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company having its registered office at Madras. It is further stated that the eyewitnesses to the occurrence are at Madras, and therefore, the convenience of parties require the proceedings to be transferred to Madras.

3. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent raises an objection, as to the maintainability of the application under S.24, C.P.C. According to him the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not a Court subordinate to this Court, within the meaning of S.24, C.P.C., and that a petition for transfer of the proceeding cannot be sustained. He relies upon two decisions of this Court viz., (1) Varalakshmi Sundar v. Meeran, (1980) 93 Mad LW 540 and (2) Annamalai v. M. Arumugaswamy, (1982) 95 Mad LW 687. In the former decision, Ratnam, J. has taken the view, that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not a Court under S.24, C.P.C. and it cannot be treated as a Court subordinate to this Court. In the latter decision Balasubramanian, J. has taken the view that under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, a proceeding before one Tribunal constituted under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot be transferred to another Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the petitioners places reliance on a decision of Sathiadev, J. in Rajeshwari v. United India Insurance Co., 1984 Acc CJ 273 : 1984 AIR(Mad) 170). After referring to both the earlier decisions of this Court Sathiadev, J. relying upon State of Gujarat v. Vakhatsinghji, 1968 AIR(SC) 1481, 1968 (3) SCR 692, 1969 (10) GujLR 48 has held, that this Court can exercise its power under Art.227 of the Constitution to transfer a proceeding from one Tribunal to another. The view taken by Sathiadev, J. is that the view taken by Balasubramanyam, J. in (1982) 95 Mad LW 687 is not correct in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Vakhatsinghji, 1968 AIR(SC) 1481, 1968 (3) SCR 692, 1969 (10) GujLR 48.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners invites my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Bhagwati Devi v. M/s. I.S. Goel, 1983 Acc CJ 123, wherein the Supreme Court, after referring to its earlier decision reported in State of Haryana v. Darshana Devi, 1979 Acc CJ 205 : ( 1979 AIR(SC) 855, 1979 (2) SCC 236, 1979 (3) SCR 184, 1979 UJ 389, 1979 ACJ 205) has held that for the purpose of S.25, C.P.C., the Tribunal, constituted under the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is a Civil Court and directed the transfer of cases from the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Moradabad to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi.

5. Section 25, C.P.C. deals with the power of the Supreme Court to transfer suits appeals or other proceedings from the High Court or other Civil Court of one State to the High Court or other Civil Court of another State. The relevant words used in S.25, C.P.C. are "Civil Court". The Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act is a Civil Court within the meaning of S.25, C.P.C. Section 24, C.P.C., uses the term "Court subordinate to it". The relevant portion in S.24, C.P.C., reads thus :

"24. General power of transfer and withdrawal :- (1) on the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage-

(a) ... ... ....

(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and

(i) ... ... ...

(ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose