K C KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. K HARISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant.

(2.) THIS revision under Section 115 arises from the judgment and Order dated 15-4-1994 by Sri g. Ramakrishna rao, member, motor accidents claims tribunal-ill, bangalore, rejecting the present revisionist-petitioner's application under Order 1, rule 10 of the CPC. The tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that the application had been filed beyond the period of one year and it has been held that the petitioner cannot be permitted to be brought on record. Under the old ACT prior to amendment of law by ACT No. 54 of 1984, the provision of fixing limitation for making claim application has been omitted. In this case, the claim petition had been filed by one harish k. In the year 1990 when the new ACT had come into force. Later on, the revisionist moved an application for impleadment in the same petition. Section as it operated then had provided maximum limitation of one year for filing the claim petition. The tribunal opined that the period for moving or filing claim petition had expired. The revisionist-applicant could not be allowed to be impleaded in the case as a party even on the date of passing of Order dated 15-4-1994. Feeling aggrieved from this Order, the applicant has come up in revision before this court under Section 115 of the CPC.

(3.) THE motor accidents claims tribunal is a tribunal. Revision under Section 115 of the CPC is maintainable only against the Order of civil court subordinate to the High Court and with reference to the Civil Procedure Code it has been provided that the district court and the courts subordinate to civil court i. e. , subordinate to the district court shall also be deemed to be subordinate to high court. That every civil court of a grade inferior to a district court and every court of small causes is subordinate to the High Court and district court. Nowhere motor accidents claims tribunal is mentioned. The scheme of the ACT as per Section 165 and its constitution which provided that a person can be appointed as a member of the motor accidents claims tribunal if he has been a judge of the High Court or if he is a judge of the High Court or if he is or has been a district judge or is qualified for appointment as a judge of High Court or district court. It further provides that even a practising Advocate who has completed ten years of practice, he may be said to be eligible for consideration of appointment. Even a retired district judge can be appointed to the tribunal if he fulfills other conditions. There is no provision in the motor vehicles ACT like the one namely Section 10 of the family courts ACT to the effect that the motor accidents claims tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court. Section 10 of the family courts ACT very clearly provides that, "family court shall be deemed for the purpose of the code to be a civil court".