SARAT KUMAR MOHARANA Vs. M RAJSEKHAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant in a claim application under the Motor Vehicles Act has filed this application Under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') for transferring Misc. Case No. 25(C) of 1992 filed by him before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balasore, to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack, for trial and disposal, mainly on the ground that it would be convenient for him to prosecute the matter at Cuttack, having regard to his condition of health.

(2.) ON the assertions made in the application Under Section 24 of the Code which have not been rebutted, prima facie, I feel that a case has been made out for transfer of the case. However, I am unable to accede to such prayer for transfer in exercise of power Under Section 24 of the Decided on 5th September, 1997. Code, as according to me, the Claims Tribunal not being a 'Court subordinate'' to the High Court, within the meaning of Section 24 of the Code, such an application is not maintainable and the remedy, if any, of the petitioner is to approach the High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE expression 'Court subordinate' has been used by the Legislature not only in Section 24, but also in Section 115 of the Code. It appears that in the context of Section 25, the expression 'Civil Court' has been utilised with a view to give wider jurisdiction, whereas, the expression 'Court subordinate' as contained -in Section 115 or Section 24 of the Code has necessarily a limited connotation. It is well -known that when the same expression is used by the Legislature in the same Act at different places, ordinarily, the same meaning is to be ascribed to the expression given. All the High Courts are almost of the unaminous view that a Claims Tribunal is not a 'Court' but a 'persona designata', At least, so far as this Court is concerned, it has been well -settled that a Claims Tribunal is not a 'Court subordinate' to High Court, but a 'persona designata' not amenable to the civil revisional jurisdiction of the High Court Under Section 115 of the Code. The said Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 1977 (I) CWR 103 [The Orissa Co -operative Insurance Company (New India Assurance Company Ltd.) v. Subhasini Pradhan and Ors.] wherein it has been observed that a Claims Tribunal is a persona designata and is not a 'Court subordinate' to the High Court and is not subjected to civil revisional jurisdiction, is still holding the field for over two decades. The meaning ascribed to the expression 'Court subordinate' in the said decision in the context of Section 115 is also applicable to Section 24 of the Code, as the same expression 'Court, subordinate' has been used. It cannot be said that the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1983 ACJ 123, has the effect of overruling either expressly or impliedly the Division Bench decision of this Court. The Division Bench decision which has held the. field for such a long period should be followed in applying the doctrine of stare decisis.