@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Srinivasan, J.@mdashThis 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 u/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 Section 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., Varalakshmi Sundar v. Meeran 93 L.W. 540 and
Annamalai v. M. Arumugaswamy 95 L.W. 687. In the former decision, Ratnam J., has taken the view, that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is
not a Court u/s 24, C.P.C., and it cannot be treated as a Court subordinate to this Court. In the later decision Balasubrahmanyan, J., has taken the
view that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a proceeding before one Tribunal constituted under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
cannot be transfered to another Tribunal. Learned Counsel for the petitioners places reliance on a decision of Sathiadev, J., in Rajeswari v. United
India Insurance Company 96 L.W. 643 : 1984 A.C.J. 273. After referring to both the earlier decisions of this Court Sathiadev, J., relying upon
State of Gujarat etc. Vs. Vakhtsinghji Sursinghji Vaghela and Others etc., , has held that this Court can exercise its power under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India to transfer a proceeding from one Tribunal to another. The view, taken by Sathiadev, J., is that the view taken by
Balasubrahmanyan, J., in Annamalai v. M. Arumugaswamy 95 L.W. 687, is not correct in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in
State of Gujarat etc. Vs. Vakhtsinghji Sursinghji Vaghela and Others etc., .
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners invites my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Bhagwati Devi v. M/s. I.S. Goel 1983
A.C.J. 123, wherein the Supreme Court, after referring to its earlier decision reported in State of Haryana v. Dharshana Devi 1979 A.C.J. 205,
has held that for the purpose of Section 25, C.P.C., the Tribunal, constituted under the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, is a Civil Court and
directed the transfer of cases from the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Moradabad to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Delhi.
5. Section 25, C.P.C. deals with the power of the Supreme Court to transfer suits, appeals or other proceedings from the High Court or other
Civil Court of one State to the High Court or other Civil Court of another State. The relevant words used in Section 25, C.P.C. are ""Civil Court"".
The Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constitute under the Motor Vehicles Act is a Civil Court
within the meaning of Section 25, C.P.C. Section 24, C.P.C. uses the term ""Court subordinate to it"". The relevant portion in Section 24, C.P.C.
reads thus:
24. General power of Transfer and Withdrawal: (1) on the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of
them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Curt may at any stage
(a) ----
(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and
(i) ---
(ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same.
6. Thus, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, having been held to be a Civil Court for the purpose of Section 25, CPC is certainly a Court
Subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure.
7. Learned Counsel for the respondents relies upon Section 3 of the CPC which runs as follows:
3 Subordination of Courts:- For the purpose of this Code, the District Court is Subordinate to the High Court, and every Civil Court of a grade
inferior to that of a District Court and every Court of Small Causes is subordinate to the High Court and District Court.
According to learned Counsel, it is only those Courts which are specifically referred to in Section 3, Code of Civil Procedure, are subordinate to
High Court and not any other statutory Tribunal which may be equated to Civil Court for certain purposes. Section 110(c)(2) of the Motor
Vehicles Act is to the effect that the Tribunals shall have all the powers which Civil Courts have for taking evidence, for enforcing the attendance of
witness, for discovery, for production of documents and the like. It is also stated that the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for
the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter 35, Cr.P.C. 1898 (Act 5 of 1898). In view of the decision of the Supreme Court and the provisions of
Section 110(c)(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is clear that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is a Civil Court for certain purposes. As it is held
to be a Civil Court for the purpose of Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure, because it is a Court of a grade inferior to that of a District Court.
Even Ratnam, J., in Varalakshmi Sundar''s case, 93 L.W. 540, has held that the Tribunal is subordinate to the High Court though it is not a Court.
8. Hence, applying the ratio of the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Devi v. I.S. Goel 1983 A.C.J. 123 (S.C.), it has to be held that the Motor
Accidents Claim Tribunal is a Civil Court Subordinate to this Court for the purpose of Section 24, Code of Civil Procedure. The decisions of
Ratnam, J. and Balasubrahmanyan, J. referred to above are no longer good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above.
Hence, the petition for transfer is maintainable u/s 24, Code of Civil Procedure.
9. Even assuming that Section 24, CPC is not applicable, transfer could be ordered under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The power of
this Court conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has not been taken away or curtailed by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles
Act which fix the territorial Jurisdiction of the tribunal constituted thereunder. A Constitutional provision cannot be defeated by an ordinary
legislation enacted by the Parliament. I do not agree with the view expressed by Balasubrahmanyan, J. in Annamalai''s case, 95 L.W. 687. It is not
necessary to enter into a detailed discussion on this matter as Sathiadev, J, has pointed out that decision of Balasubrahmanyan, J. is not correct in
view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above. Hence, a transfer could be ordered under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
also in this matter.
10. Hence, the petition for transfer is ordered as prayed for by the petitioner.
