KANNIAMMAL Vs. P NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to transfer M.O.P. No. 514/87 from the file of the District Court, Vellore to the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Madras.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of this petition it is stated that the petitioners and 1st respondent are all residents of Madras. The 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry. The 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company having its registered office at Madras. It is further stated that the eyewitnesses to the occurrence are at Madras, and therefore, the convenience of parties require the proceedings to be transferred to Madras.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent raises an objection, as to the maintainability of the application under S.24, C.P.C. According to him the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not a Court subordinate to this Court, within the meaning of S.24, C.P.C., and that a petition for transfer of the proceeding cannot be sustained. He relies upon two decisions of this Court viz., (1) Varalakshmi Sundar v. Meeran, (1980) 93 Mad LW 540 and (2) Annamalai v. M. Arumugaswamy, (1982) 95 Mad LW 687. In the former decision, Ratnam, J. has taken the view, that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is not a Court under S.24, C.P.C. and it cannot be treated as a Court subordinate to this Court. In the latter decision Balasubramanian, J. has taken the view that under Art.227 of the Constitution of India, a proceeding before one Tribunal constituted under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot be transferred to another Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the petitioners places reliance on a decision of Sathiadev, J. in Rajeshwari v. United India Insurance Co., 1984 Acc CJ 273. After referring to both the earlier decisions of this Court Sathiadev, J. relying upon State of Gujarat v. Vakhatsinghji, AIR 1968 SC 1481 has held, that this Court can exercise its power under Art.227 of the Constitution to transfer a proceeding from one Tribunal to another. The view taken by Sathiadev, J. is that the view taken by Balasubramanyam, J. in (1982) 95 Mad LW 687 is not correct in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Vakhatsinghji, AIR 1968 SC 1481.