(1.) THE second respondent in Motor Accident Claims case, being owner of the vehicle has preferred the above revision questioning the quantum awarded by the Claims Tribunal and also the dismissal of the case against the insurance company. The fact that an accident took place with reference to lorry bearing No. CTM-9673, though disputed, is found by the Tribunal as true. The evidence of PW 1 is that he was travelling in the vehicle though as gratuitous passenger; the story that he jumped out without looking to the coming vehicle and sustained injuries was disbelieved by the trial Court. The trial Court also released the insurance company from the clutches of compensation on the ground that the policy does not cover extra passenger who travel in the vehicle. It is against that the second respondent has preferred the revision.
(2.) ). Heard the respective counsel.
(3.) THOUGH preliminary objection was taken that, in the light of the dictum of this Court in ILR 1998 Kant 3733 : (1998 AIHC 4642), the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Thibbegowda wherein this Court has held that Claims Tribunal is not a Civil Court and ignored the Division Bench ruling in AIR 1985 Kant 208, Mrs. Noreen B. Srikantaiah v. Dashrath Ramaiah Gulbarga. But it was pointed out in the case, reported in ILR 2000 Kant 170, General Manager, KSRTC Central Offices v. Smt. Housamathi Shidramappa Saladagi, another single Judge of this Court has held that Claims Tribunal is a Court subordinate to the High Court. Division Bench decision of Karnataka High Court in Mrs. Noreen R. Srikanthaiah v. Dasharath Ramaiah, Gulbarga, AIR 1985 Kant 208 and decision of a single Judge in Panchaxari Shidramappa Yeligar v. Shiggaon Taluk Shikshana Samiti, ILR 1998 Kant 3748 is followed. He did not follow ILR 1998 Kant 3733 : (1998 AIHC 4642 ). It was further held that when there is a decision of the Division Bench and contrary decision of a single Judge, what is required to be followed by another single Judge in deciding the controversy is a judgment of the Division Bench.