Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This petition has been made by the above named applicant under Sec. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of Compensation Case No. 35 of 1993 from the Court of District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh, to that of the Judicial Commissioner-cum-M.A.C.T., Ranchi for expeditious and final disposal. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 29.10.1992 at about 10.00 p.m. the petitioners husband along with his family members started for going to Biharsarif from Ranchi by a Maruti van. When they reached near Tilaiya Dam at about 2.00 a.m. on 30.10.1992 it met with an accident on collision with a truck which was coming from the opposite direction and as a result of the said accident four occupants of the said Maruti van, namely, the petitioners husband, her father-in-law, mother-in-law and one of her brothers-in-law died on the spot and two minor children received serious multiple injuries. The petitioner then filed the above-mentioned compensation case before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Hazaribagh as the territorial jurisdiction lies with that Tribunal due to the site of the accident. But the petitioner being a permanent resident of Ranchi and being a helpless lady having come from a traditional family, she is now finding it difficult to prosecute with the case properly at Hazaribagh on the dates fixed by coming from Ranchi to Hazaribagh and as such a prayer has been made for transfer of the case from Hazaribagh to Ranchi Tribunal as mentioned above. Insurance company which is contesting the case has not come up with any objection although notices were served properly. 3. The grounds sought for the transfer are found to be valid and genuine and on humanitarian ground such transfer should have been allowed for giving facility to the petitioner. For the insurance company it is of little importance whether the case is proceeded either at Hazaribagh or at Ranchi because at both the places they have got their office. So on the facts and circumstances of the case petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for under Sec. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. For the insurance company it is of little importance whether the case is proceeded either at Hazaribagh or at Ranchi because at both the places they have got their office. So on the facts and circumstances of the case petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for under Sec. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. But it is required to be considered whether there is jurisdiction of this Court regarding transfer as contemplated under Sec. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code from one Tribunal to another in as much as the Tribunals are set up by Government as per Sec. 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act which corresponds to Sec. 110 of the original Act of 1939. The points for determination in this aspect are: (i) whether the Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act is a civil court or not to attract the provisions of Sec. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code; (ii) whether the territorial jurisdiction notified by the State Government for a particular Tribunal of a notified area would have any effect if under Sec. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code the case is transferred to another Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction of different area; (iii) whether such transfer is permissible under the law. 5. When these points have been raised, Mr. Lal appearing for the petitioner assisted the court by referring to different decisions of different High Courts including that of Supreme Court but he has admitted that up-till now there is no such decision of this High Court. On the points raised above, different High Courts gave different views. 6. Rajasthan High Court as reported in Laxminarain Misra V/s. Kaliash Narain Gupta 1974 ACJ 79 (Rajasthan), held that: Claims Tribunal constituted under Sec. 110 of the 1939 Act is a mere Tribunal and not a court.. .In the generic sense a court is also a Tribunal but courts are such Tribunals when they are created by statute and belong to the judicial department of the State in contradistinction to the Executive Branch of the State, petition under Sec. 24 for transfer of proceedings is not maintainable. 7. As per the Act these Tribunals are created by the State Government on being initiated by the Transport Ministry and the notifications are issued by the Governor delimiting the jurisdiction with regard to the territory of each and every Tribunal to the limited extent. 7. As per the Act these Tribunals are created by the State Government on being initiated by the Transport Ministry and the notifications are issued by the Governor delimiting the jurisdiction with regard to the territory of each and every Tribunal to the limited extent. Rajasthan High Court held that: In generic sense such Tribunal cannot be considered as a court to attract the provisions of Sec. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of the case from one Tribunal to another. 8. After a decision in the same line by the Punjab and Haryana High Court the matter reached before the Supreme Court in State of Haryana V/s. Darshana Devi 1979 ACJ 205 (SC). The Apex Court decided that: Invoking the jurisdiction under Sec. 25 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Supreme Court was empowered to transfer the case from one High Court to another. The same decision was affirmed in Bhagwati Devi V/s. I.S. Goyal 1983 ACJ 123 (SC), invoking the jurisdiction under Sec. 25. The claim case filed before the M.A.C.T., Moradabad was transferred to the file of M.A.C.T., Delhi. But then the issue remained for consideration whether the powers conferred on the Supreme Court under Sec. 25 of the Civil Procedure Code can be made available to the High Courts also under Sec. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code as the Supreme Court is vested with constitutional authority under Article 138. 9 Karnataka High Court as reported in Noreen R. Srikantaiah V/s. L. Dasarath Ramaiah 1985 ACJ 628 (Karnataka), on the basis of the decision of Darshana Devis case 1979 ACJ 205 (SC) and that of Bhagwati Devis case 1983 ACJ 123 (SC), held that power under Sec. 24 of the Code can also be exercised by High Courts for transfer of cases from one Tribunal to another Tribunal holding specifically that the Tribunal is a civil court. The basic distinction between the concept of the court and the Tribunal concedes in the powers exercised by a civil court, exercising of judicial powers to try the cases of civil nature excepting those which are expressly barred or by implication barred. But the Tribunal is constituted for a limited purpose and may exercise judicial power being transferred to it by State which may not ordinarily be exercised by courts of land or courts of the country. But the Tribunal is constituted for a limited purpose and may exercise judicial power being transferred to it by State which may not ordinarily be exercised by courts of land or courts of the country. From the construction of the wordings of constituting a Tribunal as contemplated under Sec. 165 (section 110 of the old Act) it appears that the State Government has for the purpose of social legislation and speedy remedy to the helpless victims of accidents constituted the Tribunals which might ordinarily be exercised by the civil courts in a suit for compensation for tort or for damages. So it appears that these Tribunals are being constituted by taking away the judicial power of the original civil courts to the special courts known as Tribunals for exercising those judicial functions for the particular purpose for which these are constituted. With this analogy it can be stated or presumed that the Tribunals discharging the judicial functions may be considered as a court in ordinary sense having limited jurisdiction or power for exercising or discharging judicial power. In the case referred to of the Karnataka High Court the decision was arrived at by a Division Bench headed by Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah (who became Chief Justice of India afterwards) which held that the Tribunals under the Motor Vehicles Act are the courts subordinate to High Court and as such Sec. 24 is applicable. The same analogy may also be brought from the fact that the Tribunals are required to discharge judicial power alone when the qualification for appointment of the member of a Tribunal is either a Judge of a High Court or a District Judge. In Bihar the District Judge of every district including the Additional District Judges have been appointed as Tribunals under the notification under Sec. 110 (old Act) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The point may again be raised whether the appointment of District Judge for functioning as a member of Tribunal is a persona designata or it functions as a court in its uniform power of discharge of judicial duties. For that purpose it requires to know how the notification has been made. I have been given impression that here no District Judge or Addl. District Judge have been appointed by personal name as Tribunals but they have been made members of the Tribunal as ex-officio being District Judge or Addl. District Judge. For that purpose it requires to know how the notification has been made. I have been given impression that here no District Judge or Addl. District Judge have been appointed by personal name as Tribunals but they have been made members of the Tribunal as ex-officio being District Judge or Addl. District Judge. So only to give effect of social legislation and speedy trial of the action of granting compensation has been taken away from the normal course and given to Tribunals, members of whom have again been appointed by the Act itself, a high power judicial officer in the designation of High Court Judge or of District Judge. So the intention of the legislation can be well understood that these Tribunals are set up not to take away the usual function of courts in discharging the duties as a court subordinate to High Court but to give a special attention to the disposal of cases in speedy manner. Moreover, appeal against the judgment and award of the Tribunal under the Act lies to the High Court. This also proves subordination of the Tribunals to the High Courts as a subordinate court and as such the provision under Sec. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code is applicable. 10. In the Karnataka case the rival views of different High Courts have been discussed and the ratio arrived at was that Sec. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code is applicable in respect of transfer of one case from one Tribunal to another Tribunal holding the Tribunal to be a subordinate court under the High Court. I also arrive at the same finding that the Tribunals set up in Bihar under Sec. 110 of the old Act (section 165 of the new Act) are the subordinate courts and as such Civil Procedure Code is applicable not only for a limited purpose as contemplated under Sec. 169 of the Act, but also for the purpose of transfer as contemplated under Sec. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. 11. As regards territorial jurisdiction I have already stated that each Tribunal has got definite extent of territorial jurisdiction as per the notification made by the Governor for and on behalf of the State and whether such limited territorial jurisdiction of a Tribunal can accept and try cases filed in another jurisdiction on transfer under Sec. 24, Civil Procedure Code is required to be seen. After the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code that point has been set at rest by introduction of Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code wherein suit or proceeding can be transferred under this section from a court which has no jurisdiction to try it. This point has also been decided by Madhya Pradesh High Court as reported in Vishnu Kumar V/s. Leeladhar 1994 ACJ 727 (MP). It has specifically been held that the Claims Tribunal which has no territorial jurisdiction in a claim case can try the case if the same is transferred to it by the High Court while exercising powers under Sec. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. Thus this point also goes in favour of the petitioner and the Tribunal set at Ranchi having jurisdiction within the Ranchi district can also entertain and try a case arising within the territorial jurisdiction of Hazaribagh Tribunal if the same is transferred by the High Court in exercise of the power under Sec. 24, Civil Procedure Code as per its Sub-sec. (5). 12. In view of the foregoing decision it is held that the petition is legally maintainable and this High Court has got the power of transfer of one claim case from one Tribunal to another Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunals are subordinate courts. It has already been mentioned that on factual position the petitioner has got a good case and as discussed above legally also her grievance can be entertained and there is no bar in transfer of her case from Hazaribagh Tribunal to that of Ranchi. 13. In the result the petition is allowed and the claim case No. 35 of 1993 is hereby transferred from the court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh, to that of Ranchi. The transfer should be made immediately so that the claim case can be disposed of at an early date.