» H g 2005 SENGLE BEEEH g feTfaa “Fm m? ‘ 31%w nun—.- ‘ 3M1‘1iraa? wras~3 § °??? rig W4, fmw‘ifr a fiziv‘rmg‘r WET a WT faamr g .\‘F ,_am .. v « y am 31m aa‘Tv mg w Jl ér5r f‘im Twafw zrrcrr mmm aaxw 2o m 32 1: ‘tr em' t ’am f‘wm‘e‘ 3 awn T g g W mm WT? m E w W m e warm ar n: mg a a°rr WT mm? 3 am g '_ —- ....~—...— ”n-‘——.——-——_ m? ‘ / g 1 i w , " 1am??? m W??? Ha“ arm- / WW? Na hm 3mg am, m HTa wf W? m. a ? w‘w va XI—HC-22 Vlllth Additional, Bilaspur, vide award dated 27 awarded compensah'on of Rs Ram Prasad against the app Limited and others, and the applicant in this revision. The applicant con‘ the Claims Tribunal allowed c‘ and appeal under the Mote therefore, they have preferred the Code of Civil Procedure, 19 part of Section 1 15(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as ‘ below : — 13-6-2005 Mr. Shree Kumar 1 Ali Asgar, counsel Company Limited. None for the respondents. Heard on admissi . o ‘garwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. for the Applicant National Insurance 115. Revision. —— (1) “T11 e High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subo l Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 1—2005, in Claim Case No.84] 2004, ,000/— in favour o'f the claimant cant National Insurance Company award has been challenged by the :ended that, vide impugned‘award, )mpensation less than Rs.10,000/— r Vehicles Act, 1988 is barred, this revision under Section 115 of O8 against the award. The relative rdinate Court appears — XXX XXX XX” (warm) . a d XI—HC-22 the above provisions unveils that, the High Court can exercise r visional jurisdiction under Section ‘ 115 of the. Code of Civil Pro 6durc, 1908 only when the order under challenge has been pas ed by Civil Court or Court of Small Causes. Claims Tribunals ve been constituted by the State Government exercising pow conferred on them under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Ac , 1988. Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 also descri es the procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunals and als provides the provisions for appeal s Tribunals. Neither the Claims Tribunals have been declar Civil Courts under any of the provisions of the Motor Ve cles Act, 1988 nor the said Act empowers the High Court to xercise’ jurisdiction under Section has been demled under Section 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as below : — Subordination of Courts 3 Subordination of Courts — “For the purposes of this Code, the D1str1ct Court ls subordinate to the High Court, and every Civil Court of a grade inferior to that of a District Court and every Court of Small Causes is subordinate to the High Court and District Ciburt.” Bare reading of b0 against the award passed by C e (ww) a e XI—HC-22 Appeal against aw'e Motor Accidents. Claims Tribur Vehiclss Act, 1988 or Rulas, power of revision against such Court nor the said provision l 1 15' of the Cod€ of Civil Proced are, 1908 against tha award passed by any of the Motor Accidgnts Claims Txibunals. Evan the S’tato Government, empowored tovmake rules, although have framed rulas, did not maka Section 1 1908 applicable to any award only provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, applicable to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, have been described in Rule 240 of the M;P. Motor Vehicles Rules reads as below : — 15 of the Codo of Civil Procedure, passed by a Claims Tribunal, and Rules, 1994. Rule 240 of the said followed bv Claims Tribunal in 240. Procedure to be holding enquiries, — “Applications of certain provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, v the First Schedule to the 1908; Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or these rules, the following provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) namely, those contained in Order V, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 20, Order IX, Order XVIII, Rules 3 to 10, Order XVI, Rules 2 to 21, Order XVI , Order XXI and Order XXIII, Rules l to 3 shall apply to proceedings before a Claims Tribunal in so far as they may be app licable thereto.” xrd below Rs.10,000/— passed by a Lal is barred, but under the Motor 1994 framed thereunder, neither award has been conferred on High tas been made applicable to claim (waist) / XI—HC—22 wwwffwm / éamum . asmgh cases. Motor Accid€nts Clain under spec1£c provisions of th‘ said ’I‘xibuna'ls have not been the High Court for the purpose Procedure, 1908, and accordir Procedure, 1908, the said Tn'bl of Courts for the purposes of From the aforesai discussions, it is held that, the Motor Accidents Claims Trib als are not Courts subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, therefore, Tribunal, though not appeals revisional jurisdiction under Procedure, 1908. Accordingly, the n dismissed ' in limine. The appropriate remedy available under the law, Sd/— Vijay Kumar Shrivastava Judge Ls Tribunals have been established 3 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arid the declared as Courts subordinate to s of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Lg to Section 3 of the Code of Civil mals do not come Within the edifice Code of Civil Procedure, 1§O8. impugned award, passed by the ble, will not be amenable to the Section 115 of the Code of Civil‘ :vision is not tenable, hence it is applicant, if > advised, may take (drew)