(1.) This appeal gives rise to a short question of law, viz., whether the Claims Tribunals, after the Amending Act 56 of 1969, can entertain and try claims with regard to damages to properties only?
(2.) The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Hubli Division, Hubli, by its Deputy General Manager (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) instituted a claim against the respondents in that petition for damages to the bus caused by truck bearing registration No. MYD 5057 on 3-4-1972. It is the case of the Corporation that the bus was going on the main road when suddenly a truck came by the by-road and the driver of the bus (PW 2) on seeing the truck coming with high speed, halted the bus but even so the truck came and dashed against the right broad side of the bus causing damages to it, and the damages were calculated to be at Rupees 1,345.66 paise. For claiming these damages, the Corporation instituted a petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Claims Tribunal Dharwar. This was resisted by the owner and driver of the truck on the ground that the Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction, even after the Amending Act 56 of 1969, to entertain claims only with regard to damages to property. They further contended that the accident was not the result of rash and negligent driving of the truck. According to them, the claim was exorbitant.
(3.) During hearing, PW 1 Ambariah, Divisional Mechanical Engineer, PW 2 Mahamad Hayat and PW 3 Mahaboob, an eye-witness, were examined on behalf of the claimants. None was examined on behalf of the respondents. The Claims Tribunal, however, took up the issue as to whether the Tribunal could entertain and try a claim regarding only damages to the property, for consideration as a preliminary issue, and discussing that issue at length, came to the conclusion that it could not. In that view, it dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the said order dates 29-11-1974 passed by the Claims Tribunal. Dharwar, the Corporation has come up in appeal before this Court.