CAUVERY AND COMPANY BUS TRANSPORTERS Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (V ADDITIONAL SUB COURT) AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions coming on for hearing on Tuesday, the 30th day of October, 1981 and this day, upon perusing these petitions and their respective affidavits filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 23.1.79 (in W.P. 625/79 and W.P. No. 691 to 694/79) made herein and the counter affidavit filed herein and the records relating to I.A. No. 912/78 in MACTOP No. 111/78 (2) MACTOP No. 1042/78 in MACTOP 193/78 (3) I.A. No. 913/78 in MACTOP No. 143/78 (4) I.A. No. 215/78 in MACTOP No. 191/78 and (5) I.A. No. 914/78 in MACTOP No. 159/78 respectively dated 23.1.79 on the file of the 1st Respondent and comprised in its return to the writ made by the High Court and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Raman, advocate for the Petitioner in all the petitions and of Mr. C. Chinnaswami for Government pleader on behalf of the 1st Respondent in all the petitions, Mr. S. Sampath Kumar advocate for the 5th Respondent in W.P. No. 625/79, 3rd Respondent in W.P. 691/79, 693 and 694/79 and 4th Respondent in W.P. 692/79 and of Mr. K. Chandramouli, advocate for the 6th Respondent in W.P. No. 625/79 for the 4th Respondent in W.P. No. 693 and 694/79 and other Respondent in all the petitions not appearing in person or by advocate' the Court made the following Order:

(2.) THE petitions are filed challenging the correctness of the impugned order wherein the Tribunal has held that when there is a conflict between two decisions of the High Court, the rule to be adopted is that the decision of a Division Bench should prevail over the decision of a single Judge and the decision of a larger Bench over that of a Division Bench, as held in Ramasubbaravalu Reddiar v. Rengammal : (1962) 2 M.L.J. 318 and hence the Division Bench decision of Gauhati High Court will prevail over the single judge decision of this Court. Mr. Raman, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would at the outset state that the decision of the Full Bench has been totally misconstrued, in that the rule laid down would be applicable only in respect of decisions rendered by the concerned High Court and cannot be extended when decisions are rendered by different High Courts. The Tribunal had chosen to rely upon the Division Bench decision of the Gauhati High Court, in preference to the judgment of this Court rendered by a single Judge in Union of India v. P. Kailasam : 1974 A.C.J. 488 (Mad.). It is quite obvious from what has been laid down by the Full Bench of this Court that subordinate Courts are bound by decisions of this Court and in the absence of any conflict between the decision of a single Judge and a larger bench, the Court is bound to follow the decision of the single Judge of this Court, unless it is able to distinguish the decisions on the facts of the case and prefer to adopt the reasoning of a decision of any other High Court or even the Courts in other countries. Therefore, there being a patent error of law committed on the face of the order, it deserves to be set aside.

(3.) MR . Chandra Mouli, learned Counsel appearing for the 6th Respondent, would contend that apart from whatever be the error of law that has been committed in understanding the Full Bench decision of this Court, on the aspect of impleading parties, in respect proceedings pending before Claims Tribunals constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, there being no provision made in the rules for such impleadment and even otherwise, when no claim could be sustained as against any person or party whose motor vehicle is not involved in the accident, there is no need to implead BHEL as a Respondent in the claim petition. In support of this contention, he refers to Sections 110 -A(2) and 110 -B to show that the Act nowhere contemplates any compensation being claimed from a person whose motor vehicle is not involved in an accident. In the form prescribed for making claim applications, there is no requirement prescribed for referring to any vehicles, which do not come within the scope of the Motor Vehicles Act. Clauses 15 and 16 prescribe only the particulars to be furnished in respect of the motor vehicles which are involved in the accident.