An appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is not competent from the order of a Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

Shamsher Bahadur, J.

1. In this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, a preliminary objection has been raised that such an appeal does not lie from the order of the learned Single Judge (D.K. Mahajan J.) who on 11.04.1967, partially allowed the appeal preferred from the order of Shri Gyani as a Claims Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939

2. A transport vehicle carrying passengers and belonging to the appellant, the Fazilka Dabwali Transport Co., (P) Ltd struck two boys. Pardeep Kumar and Devinder Singh, riding on a bicycle on 27.04.1962. One of the two boys. Pardeep Kumar received serious injuries resulting in amputation of one leg and damage to the foot of the other side The father of Pardeep Kumar claimed a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed damages to him to the extent of Rs. 7000.00 Devinder Singh was awarded a sum of only Rs. 700.00. These damages were payable by the appellant, which is the owner of the vehicle The owner preferred an appeal to the High Court which was heard by Mahajan J on 11.04.1967. The amount of compenstion awarded to Pardeep Kumar was enhanced from Rs. 7000.00 to Rs. 12,000.00 Against this order of the learned Single Judge the Fazilka-Dabwali Transport Company has preferred this appeal and a preliminary objection has been taken by the respondent Madan Lal father of Pardeep Kumar that no such appeal lies under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

3. The preliminary objection on which this appeal is being dismissed has been argued with ability both by Mr Goswami, who has raised it and Mr Tuli who contends that the appeal is maintainable The arguments adressed by the counsel are the result of considerable labour and industry It is pointed out by Mr Goswami that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , (hereinafter called the Act) was extensively amended by the Central Act 100 of 1956 to bring about speedy adjudication of claims for compensation by the Claims Tribunal constituted under this Act to deal with accident claims. Section 110 empowers the State Government to constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals "for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles". No person is qualified for appointment to the Claims Tribunal under Sub-section (3) unless he "is or has been" either a High Court or a District Judge "or is qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court" It is emphasised that Section 110-B of the Act empowers the Claims Tribunal, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, "to hold an inquiry into the claim" and to "make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just." The Claims Tribunal, under Sub-section (1) of Section 110-C of the Act has to follow "such summary procedure as it thinks fit" and under Sub-section (2) the 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." The Claims Tribunal further "shall be deemed to be a Civil Court." Under Sub-section (3) of Section 110-C, the 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."

4. Section 110-D refers to the right of appeal and a person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award prefer an appeal to the High Court." Sub-section (2) of Section 110-D says that no appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than two thousand rupees." The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is specifically ousted under Sectio