1984 (12) TMI 333 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is a "Court" subordinate to the High Court under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
2. Whether the High Court has the power to transfer a case from one Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to another under Section 24 CPC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is a "Court" subordinate to the High Court under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC):

The primary issue in this case was to determine whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is considered a "Court" subordinate to the High Court, which would allow the High Court to exercise its general power of transfer under Section 24 CPC. The petitioner sought to transfer her case from the Tribunal at Gulbarga to the Tribunal at Bangalore Metropolitan area due to her health conditions.

The judgment explored the distinction between a "Court" and a "Tribunal." Both are vested with judicial power, but a "Court" is part of the ordinary hierarchy of civil courts with general jurisdiction, while a "Tribunal" exercises judicial power in special matters as conferred by statute. The judgment cited various precedents, including State of Mysore v. K. L. Subbanna and Revanappa v. Gunde Rao, which held that the Tribunal is not a "Court" subordinate to the High Court.

However, the judgment also referenced Supreme Court decisions, including Bhagwati Devi v. I. S. Goel, which clarified that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is a "Civil Court" for purposes of Section 25 CPC. The Supreme Court's pronouncement in Bhagwati Devi was pivotal, as it indicated that the Tribunal could be considered a "Court" for the purpose of transfer under Section 24 CPC as well.

2. Whether the High Court has the power to transfer a case from one Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to another under Section 24 CPC:

The judgment concluded that since the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is considered a "Civil Court," it is subordinate to the High Court. This subordination implies that the High Court has the authority to transfer cases from one Tribunal to another under Section 24 CPC. The judgment cited Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Mahaboob and T. V. Subba Rao v. T. Koteswara Rao, which supported the view that all civil courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court are subordinate to it.

The judgment also referenced Thakur Das case, which, although in the context of criminal jurisdiction, provided guidance on the subordination of courts and the hierarchy of judicial authority.

The High Court held that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is a "Court" subordinate to it, and thus, the transfer of a case from one Tribunal to another within the State is permissible under Section 24 CPC.

Conclusion:

The High Court allowed the petition, transferring the proceedings in MVC 51 of 1981 from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga, to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Metropolitan Area, for disposal in accordance with the law. The judgment emphasized that the Tribunal is a "Court" subordinate to the High Court, thereby enabling the exercise of the High Court's power of transfer under Section 24 CPC.