Allahabad High Court: In a case relating to the issue that whether a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or functioning under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939(‘Act of 1939') is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘Code') to make an order passed by the Tribunal amenable to the High Court's jurisdiction in a civil revision, J.J. Munir, J. held that the Full Bench decision in Kamla Yadav v. Sushma Devi, 2004 (22) LCD 40 is binding precedent and does not need reconsideration. Thus, a Tribunal being a Civil Court is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code.
The Court took note of Satish Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1970 SCC OnLine All 189 , wherein it was held that the Tribunal constituted under the Act is not a Court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of Section 115 of the Code. Further, it referred to Afsari Begum v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd., 1979 SCC OnLine All 191, wherein it was held that the Claims Tribunal being a Civil Court was amenable to the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code. However, in Kamla Yadav(supra), the Single Judge opined that the Division Bench in Afsari Begum (supra) had not noticed the provision of Section 3 of the Code and Section 110-C (2) of the Act of 1939 while holding that the Tribunal under the Act of 1939 is a Court subordinate to the High Court and referred the matter to a full bench. The Division Bench noticed that the Single Judge had not considered the decision of this Court in Om Prakash v. Rukmini Devi, 1982 SCC OnLine All 404, wherein it was held that, Tribunal does not enjoy the status of a Civil Court and its orders are, therefore, not amenable to appeal under Order XLIII of the Code.
This conflict of opinion between Afsari Begum (supra) and Om Prakash (supra) was settled by the Full Bench of this Court, by holding that Tribunal being a Civil Court was amenable to the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code. However, in Union of India v. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd., Bhadravathi, Karnataka State, 2003 SCC OnLine Kar 552 it was held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal established under the Act is not a Court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of Section 115 of the Code.
The Court noted that a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Manju, 2007 SCC OnLine All 192 without noticing the Full Bench decision in Kamla Yadav (supra), held that the Tribunal was not a Court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of Section 115 of the Code. It said that the decision in Manju (supra) was not about the maintainability of a civil revision, but about the maintainability of a first appeal from order of the Tribunal that was not an award and appealable under Section 173 of the Act.
The issue in this case was, whether the view of the Full Bench in Kamla Yadav(supra) that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code requires reconsideration?
The Court said that if the issues settled by the Full Bench in Kamla Yadav(supra) were again referred, then it does not think that it would be in keeping with the settled principles regarding adherence to binding precedent about making a reference to a larger Bench for reconsideration. Further, it said that much doubt could be thrown up regarding the correctness of the decision in Kamla Yadav(supra) and the decision in Mysore Paper Mills(supra) is a strong inspiration to do that. But it can be nothing more than an inspiration.
[Radhey Shyam Singh v. Nagina Dev, 2023 SCC OnLine All 5, decided on 03-01-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Revisionist: – Advocate Prakhar Saran Srivastava;
Counsel for Opposite Party: – Advocate Ankur Mehrotra.
*Apoorva Goel, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
