LAWS(KAR)-1986-7-24

CHIEF SECRETARY Vs. CHARLES PEREA

Decided On July 03, 1986
CHIEF SECRETARY Appellant
V/S
Charles Perea Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by defendants Nos. I and 2 against the order dated August 31, 1984, passed by the District Judge, Chikmagalur, in M.A. No. 15 of 1983, reversing the order dated July 13, 1983, passed by the civil judge, Chikmagalur, in O.S. No. 51 of 1980, ordering the return of the plaint on the ground that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff is the owner of a jeep bearing registration No. MYQ 9996. It was in a good condition. On April 25, 1979, the jeep was being carefully and slowly driven by him. His two brothers, his estate manager and three children were also travelling in the jeep. They were returning from Muthodi block of their estate to their main estate situated near Mallandur. He was driving the jeep keeping to the left side of the road. On April 25, 1979, at about 11 -30 a.m, while the jeep was thus being driven, a lorry bearing registration No. MES 4270 belonging to the first defendant came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction at a high speed. The lorry overtook a bus and dashed against the jeep. The jeep was damaged and the inmates of the jeep were injured. As the damage caused to the jeep was more than Rs. 2,000 he has not included it in the claim petition. He filed a suit claiming damages of Rs. 11,470.

(3.) THE civil judge, before whom the suit was pending, came to the conclusion that the civil court had no jurisdiction at all to entertain a suit for recovery of damages caused to a vehicle in the accident. According to the trial court, it is only the Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act that has jurisdiction to entertain such claims. Taking this view, the trial court ordered the return of the plaint. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial court, approached the District Judge, Chikmagalur, with M.A. No. 15 of 1983. The District Judge came to the conclusion that the civil court had the jurisdiction even in such cases and taking this view, he set aside the order passed by the civil judge. The defendants, being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Judge, have approached this court with the present revision.