The main legal point established is the interpretation of whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

JUDGMENT :

The question of maintainability of these applications under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908[“Code” for short] has arisen in view of the decision of a learned Single Judge in Shankar Lal Jaiswal v. Asha Devi and others, (2018) SCC OnLine All 2545 : (2019) 132 ALR 809. In Shankar Lal Jaiswal (supra) the learned Single Judge has held that an application under Section 24 of the Code to transfer a claim petition pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal would not lie to this Court. It has been held in the said decision that a Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988[“the 1988 Act” for short] is not a Court subordinate to the High Court, within the meaning of Section 24(1)(b) of the Code. No transfer application would lie to this Court for transferring a claim petition from one Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to another, constituted under the Act. It would be profitable to quote in extenso what was held in Shankar Lal Jaiswal, which is as follows :

3. A Motor Accident Claim Petition is filed before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which is constituted by the State Government in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This section empowers the State Government to constitute by notification, one or more motor accidents Claims Tribunals for the area specified in the notification, for adjudicating claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving death or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or for damage to any property of a third party, so arising or both.

4. This section also provides the qualification of a person for his appointment as a Member of the Claims Tribunal.

5. Sub-section 4 of Section 165 states that where two or more Claims Tribunals are constituted for one area, the State Government can, by a special or general order, regulate the distribution of business among them.

6. In accordance with Section 166(2) of the Act, a claimant can file a claim petition before a Claims Tribunal.

(i) having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or

(ii) Claims Tribunal within whose local limits the claimant resides or carries on business or

(iii) within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides.

7. Section 169 provides the procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunals constituted by the State Government by notification in exercise of powers conferred by Section 165. It provides that the Claims Tribunal may follow such summary procedure as it things fit, subject to the Rules that may be made for the purpose.

8. Sub-section 2 of Section 169 provides that the Claims Tribunal shall have all powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath, enforcing attendance of witnesses and for compelling discovery and production of documents and material objects.

9. It is also deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

10. Section 175 specifically bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts for an area where a Claims Tribunal has been constituted by the State Government, under Section 165.

11. Section 176 confers the Rule making power upon the State Government. It also provides that Rules can be framed regarding the powers of a Civil Court, which may be exercised by a Claims Tribunal.

12. In exercise of the aforementioned rule making power, the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 have been framed. Rule 221 thereof, reads as follows:—

“221. Code of Civil Procedure to apply in certain cases.- The following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall so far as may be apply to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal, namely, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30 of Order V; Order IX, Rules 3 to 10 of Order XIII, Rules 2 to 21 of Order XVI; Order XVII; and Rules 1 to 3 of Order XXIII.”

13. From a conjoint reading of the provisions noticed above, it emerges