si5§.E BE^ IW THE HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISOAfiH AT BIIASFUR Cnril Revision No. APPLICANT Ci ./2005 ^.Defeadant No.3 -Versus ~ RJBSPONDENT ^Clainiaat 1. ^' RESPONDENT '"Defeudant No. 1 RESPONDENT Defendant No.2 %< x ^'. The New India Assuraace Conipany Ltd., Bhalai, Durg, fhrough its Branch Manager, Bilaspur (C.G.). Shri Lankesh Kumar Bais, 24 years, 8/0 Shri Cbaitram, R/ o WUage - Tuta, TahaU and District- Raipur (C.G.) Shri Sri Rain Eajput, 30 years, S/o Shri Datao Rajput. Shri Daino Rajput, 50 years, 9/0 8hn Shukra Rajput. Both R/ o Baflway Colony, Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil & District-Raipur (C.G.). ^^ RB.tlo--::"""^)^S-7 presenlet' .......C^-< '^eA.-S^S'"^SVJ.SlOS UITOBR 8ECTIOH 115 0V THE CFVIL PROCEDOTtE v^-" CODE XI-HC-22 sn^r^r fN^sn^r ;flf?a- 3sr^iraRT4, »Tflt<'is,i»ifii«y .^V^f^r. «l*iCTraiH)'h 311^1 ^WIigTBfST 13-6-2005 Mr. Prasliant Jays wiferflT WRTT'ir'te^ ;risR?ri: ^i3rf^iT3f1^T swal, Senior Advocate wifh Mr. Vinay Paadey, coi^asel for fheApplicaat The New India Assurauce Coinpa^iy Ltd. iu Civil Revision Nos.61/2005, 63/ 2005 aad 64/2005. None for tbe respo|ttdents. Additional Moto^ Accidents Clauns Tribunal, Dhamtari, by a comiuon aw^u-d dated 10-2-2005, decided the Claim Cases No.454/2004, 45^ Rs.2,000/- coiapensation ia C] in Claim Case No.455/2004) No.457/2004 to respective cl^ 1/2004 and 457/2004, and awarded aim Case No.454/2004, Rs.3,000/- aad Rs.3,500/- in Claim Case ^imants agaiust the Applicant The New India Assurance Coiup^ny Ltd. and others, and beiag aggrieved by that award, Civil I^evision Nos.61/2005, 63/2005 aad 64/2005 have been preferred b}r the applicant. Therefore, all these revisions are heard aaalogous^y on admission as well as on atl pendiag Interlocutor}' AppUc^tions and MisceUaaeous (Civil) Petitions. A&er due cons;ijideration, I.A. Nos. 1317/2005, 1430/2005 and 1431/2005, ^>r exemption from filing certi&ed copy offhe impugned award da^ed 10-2-2005, are allowed. The applicaat cont^ fhe eiaims Tribuiial aUowed cd •nded fhat, vide impugned award, mpensation less fhan Rs.10,000/- and appeal uxider fhe Moto^ Vehicles Act, 1988 is ban-ed, (if^^Q^) XI-HC-22 3^ '^MW'I'I, ^wie, hvfwy. _3ii^i.Saqi , , / c;"^'^0". 6; /^y i(tiMi'ai*(i<ti"""""^'"^""^R;'[ 200 W^T^iT R-fi'ti an^r 'df^cT W^l ^•WliBTflfN' fherefore, they have preferred fhe Code of Civfl Procedure, l^ part of Section 115(1) of tlie below : - these revisions luider Section 1 15 of p08 against fhe award. The relati.ve of Ciyil Procedure, 1908 reads as Cdde 115. Revision. - (1) "T^ of any case which subordiiiate fo such thereto, aad ifsucU High Cpurt may caU for the record b[as been decided by aay Court Court and in whlch no appeal Ues subcjrdinate Court appears - xxx xxx xx° Hig^i Suboidinatiou of Section 3 of the Code of Civil below ; - Code, the District Courtj and everv Civil Court of Coiirt and every Court ofl High Court aad District fhe High Court caa exercise n 115of fhe Code of Civfl Pro< -———-*-*?: +l'i|j?f'sfl-< 41*1MTtttec^t<RlWK ^aif^rq'gn^T Courts has been defined uiider Procedure, 1908, which reads as 3. Suboi-diaation of C^nrts. - "For the purposes of fhis is subordiaate to fhe High Court, ^ grade inferior to fhat of a District Sruatl Causes is subordinate to the Court." Bare readiag ofboljh fhe above provisions unveils that, ^visional jiuisdiction under Section tedure, 1908 oiily when fhe order under chaUenge has been pas^ed by Civil Court or Court ofSniaIl Causes. ('fl^^fs^') XI-HC-22 3^'^irqRTq', (STflu'ls, R<rtiyy Kl*inrsn*iicn """ <^"""" j"^ 200 afl^r^r {^fra'sn^r :fS?S 3TI^ISRITW;H^r Clauns Tribunals Govenuiient exercisiag powers^ 165 of fhe Motor Vebicles Aci Vebicles Act, 1988 also descri|)es fhe Claims Tribunals and alsct against the awari passed by C^aiia; Tribunals have been declared provisions of fhe Motor Veh^cles empowers fhe High Court to 115 6f fhe Code of Civfl PTocedtu-e, by any of fhe Motor Accidents] Goverument, empowered to u|iake rules, did uot inake Section 1)15 1908 applicable to any award only provisions of fhe Code of Motor Accidents Claims Tribufaals, 240 offhe M.P. Motor Vehiclesl Rules reads as below : - 240. Procedure to be hoUli.ug^eaciuiries. - "A Code of Civil Procedure, provided in fhe Act or the First Schedule to the 1908),namcly, fhose 15 to 20, Order IX, Ord^r - ——————l--E^- _ _ ttililtflin-1 tll^cft'ifteLifl iRlWK ^srf^ira.n^r ^iave been constituted by fhe State coiiferred on thein iinder Section t 1988. Chapter XII of tfae Motor fhe procedure to be foUowed by provides fhe provisions for appeal laiias Tribunals, Neitlier fhe Claims Civil Courts under any of fhe Act, 1988 nor the said Act sxercise jurisdiction under Section ;, 1908 agamst fhe award passed Clauns Tribiuials. Even fhe State rules, althougfa have fraxued of fhe Code of Civil Piocediire, Ipassed by a Claims Tribunal, aad pivil Procedure, 1908, appUcable to >, bave been described ia Rule Rules, 1994. Rule 240 ofthe said fonpwed b? Clalms Tribunal ia jiplications of certam provisions of 1908; Save as othenvise expressly th^se rules, the fonowing provisions of jCode ofCivil Procedure, 1908 fV of cont^iaed in Order V, Rules 9 to 13 and XVIII, Rules 3 to 10, Order XVI, (ifl^^i^) XI-HC-22 3(1^1 ^il ^sn^r ^flf^tT 3^- sfww^, riTfly'iii, RiciKiy 3fl^i^act>^,, / . C. K - M^1 • ^f 1 e's ll*i(irsn*<i* ••••••••••^'•••••••'^g^ 200 SII^I^WIWg^tT <tii«Id41-<tiit<^T^te'<rl <RI<<K ^siRriTsn^r 1 to 3 shaU apply to pro Rules 2 to 21, Order XV^I, Order XXI and Orier XXIII, Rules [•eedings before a Claims Tribunal in so far as they itiay be apjj?licable fKereto." Appeat agaiast awj Motor Accidents Claims Tribu^ial is barred, but iinder fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or Rules,| power of revision agaiast such ird below Rs.10,000/- passed by a 1994 framcd fhereunder, neifher award has beeu conferred on High Court nor fhe said provision ^ias been made applicable to claim cases. Motor Accidents Clairds Tribunals have been estabUshed under specific provisions of fh^ said Tribunals have not been Motor Vehicles Aet, 1988 aad fhe declared as Courts siibordiaate to fhe High Court for fhe purpose^ of Section 115 of ffae Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and accordinfe to Section 3 of fhe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the said Tribijiials do not coiue wifhin the edi&ce ofCourts for the purposes offh^ Froia the aforesaid ; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. discussions, it is held that, fhe Motor Accidents Claiins Tnbunlals are not Courts subordinate to the High Court for the purpose^ ProcedTtre, 1908, fherefore; th^ Tribunal, fhough not appealat ofSection 115 offhe Code ofCivil impugned award, passed by the ^le, wffll not be ainenable to the revisional jurisdictiou under ^ection 115 of tlle Code of Civit Procedure, 1908, Cfli^r) XI-HC-22 3^'^iraRpr, (STTl^'is, RiMiyy HTwniawi<*> 311^1 ^Wh —c^^.:.^:.fc7.^ ^"""^'^""'7 200 an^TqiT RaNisn^T ^flf?cT •sn^r^n^r ^t^cT Accordiagly, fhe are dismissed in Vsmne. TU appropriate reinedy avaUable In the light of Interlocuto^ Applications for (Civil) Petitions for graat of stay +i'iiti'f'in-) ><i4<-fTftT5L<fl <Ri't&i< ^sf^irsn^r r^visions are not tenable, hence fhey je appUcaat, if advised, inay take ubder fhe law. above order, all fhe pendia^ [ur^ent hearing aad MisceUaneous staiid disposed of. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge JJ3-^/-A v;^y