Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 407 (KAR)

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD v. ABDUL SAB

2000-06-14

H.N.TILHARI

body2000
HARINATH TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THESE Revisions Petitions arise from the order of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal. ( 2 ) THIS Court in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS THIBBEGOWDA AND OTHERS' had opined and held that Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is not a Civil Court for the purpose of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in view of section 3 of Code of Civil Procedure. This Court had in the case of oriental Insurance Company Ltd. , had taken into consideration the earlier Division Bench decision in the case reported in AIR 1985 kar 208 . It was a case in the context of Section 24 and was not the case dealing with Section 115. Apart from that, in that cases attention of the Court was not drawn to the provisions of Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act 1939 and 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 as well as Article 323 (A) and 323 (B) of the Constitution as some other provision and therefore this Court held that the decision in AIR 1985 KARNATAKA 208 is perincurium and is not applicable to the question involved in the context Section 115 CPC and held that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not a Civil Court for the purpose of Section 115, keeping in view of other provisions of Motor vehicles Act as well, and the Revision Petition under Section 115 is not maintainable. Thereafter, it appears that in another case namely, general Manager, KSRTC Central Officer and Another vs Housamati c. Dharmappa and others, another Single Judge had expressed his dis-agreement with the view taken by this Court in Oriental Insurance company Limited in ILR 1998 Karnataka 3733 and expressed the opinion that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a Court subordinate to High Court and revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure is maintainable. ( 3 ) THERE being two conflicting decisions, the propriety requires that I should refer the papers to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief justice in view of the conflict of two decisions and the law on the subject laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of SRI BHAGWAN vs RAMCHAND2 where their Lordship observed as under:"before we part with the appeal, however, we ought to point out that it would have been appropriate if the learned Single judge had not taken upon himself to consider the question as to whether the earlier decisions of the Division Benches of the High court needed to be reconsidered and revised. It is plain that the said decisions had not been directly or even by necessary implication overruled by any decision of the Court, indeed, the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge shows that he was persuaded to re-examine the matter himself and in fact he had substantially recorded his conclusion that the earlier decisions were erroneous even before his attention was drawn to the decision of this Court in Laxman Purshottam Pimputkar's case (1964) I SCR 200; ( AIR 1964 SC 436 ) (supra), it is hardly necessary to emphasise that consideration of judicial propriety and decorum require that if a learned Single Judge hearing a matter is inclined to take the view that the earler decision of the high Court, whether of a Division Bench or of a single Judge, need to be reconsidered, he should not embark upon that enquiry sitting as a single judge but should refer the matter to a Division bench or. in a proper case, place the relevant papers before the chief Justice to enable him to constitute a larger Bench to examine the question. That is the proper and traditional way to deal with such matters and it is founded on healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety. It is to be regretted that the learned Singled Judge departed from this traditional way in the present case and chose to examine the question himself. "similar view has been expressed as well in the latter cases. It is to be regretted that the learned Singled Judge departed from this traditional way in the present case and chose to examine the question himself. "similar view has been expressed as well in the latter cases. The order may not be overburdened with case law on that Really, if the learned Single Judge wanted to differ and his opinion was that the decision in Oriental Insurance Company case was not correct, he could have followed this principle laid down in Sri Bhagwan's case. Keeping in above in view and as there appears to be two different and conflicting decisions on the point as "whether Motor Accidents claims Tribunals is Civil Court for the purpose of Section 115 CPC keeping in view the provisions of Motor Accidents Claims Act", such as Sections 165, 169 (2), 173 and 175 etc. , i refer the following questions for being considered by larger bench and request the ho. n'ble Chief Justice to constitute larger bench and consider the questions mentioned hereinafter. 1) Whether inview of the Provisions above mentioned and other provisions of Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 3 of code of Civil Procedure and Article 323 A and 323 A of the constitution, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal can be considered and deemed to be Civil Court for the purpose of Section 115 and if not whether Revision of Section 115. CPC is maintainable from the orders and awards given by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal? 2) Which of the two decisions, namely, in the case of Oriental insurance Company Ltd. , vs Thibbegowda and Others (ILR 1998 karnataka 3733 ) and in the case of General Manager, KSRTC, central Office and another vs Housamati C. Dharmappa and others, ILR 2000 Karnataka P. 170, lays down the correct proposition of law to be followed? 3) If revision remedy is not available then whether it is open to such petitioner to file petition under Articles 226 ad 227 of the constitution? 4) Whether Civil Revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil procedure in such cases can be said to be equally efficacious alternative remedy, as petition under Article 226/227? 3) If revision remedy is not available then whether it is open to such petitioner to file petition under Articles 226 ad 227 of the constitution? 4) Whether Civil Revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil procedure in such cases can be said to be equally efficacious alternative remedy, as petition under Article 226/227? i may further mention that with reference to the question whether education Appellate Tribunal constituted under Education Act and during the interagnum period provided under Section 96 (2) of education Act which ordains that the district Judge shall act as education Appellate Tribunal in a District, whether such Tribunal can be said to be Civil Court, has already been referred to the Hon'ble chief Justice by this Court for constitution of larger bench to consider the question and for laying down of authoritative law in CRP. No. 3487/98, 3488/98 and 3501/98 vide my order dated 18th January 1999. I have given this reference of the earlier cases so that the hon'ble Chief Justice may be pleased to look into the same and constitute the larger bench in view of urgency of the matter to decide whether Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Education Appellate tribunal can be deemed and considered to be Civil Courts, particularly, taking into consideration the provisions of respective Acts and whether Civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure is maintainable from the Orders of such Tribunals as above?" let the papers be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice by the Registrar Judicial at the earliest for constitution of larger bench. --- *** --- .