THOMAS TOUNLEY Vs. HOTZ HOTELS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by the plainliff. is directed against an order returning the plaint, filed in the suit, for the recovery of damages, for presentation to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The suit was based on the following allegations : - The plaintiffs No. 1 and 2. the employees of plaintiff No. 3 a limited Company, incorporated and functioning in London, were sent to India, by plaintiff No. 3, for assisting and supervising the installation of certain machinery in the mills of M/s Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., Delhi. Plaintiffs Nos 1 & 2 had stayed in the Cecil Hotel, Delhi, owned by defendant No. 1 Plaintiffs Nos. I and 2 had hired a taxi on the 18th July, 1957 owned by defendant No. 1 and driven by defendant No. 2. The taxi was insured against Third party Risks by defendant, No. 3. The taxi was hired for carrying plaintiffs Nos 1 and 2 to the premises of the Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. from the Cecil Hotel. As the taxi had travelled a little beyond Bhargava Lane, a truck driven by defendant No. ,5 had stuck against the taxi. The truck then swung to the left, knocked down a cyclist and then banged against a tree felling it down. Defendant No. 5 was driving the truck rashly and negligently. The truck was owned by the defendant No. 4 and was insured against Third party Risks with defendant No 6 As a result of the accident, plaintiffs No 1 and 2 had sustained serious injuries and had to undergo medical treatment for a considerable time. They had incurred expenses in connection with the medical treatment. They had also suffered shock and pain. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were not fit for completing the work for which they had been sent to India. Plaintiff No. 3 had, therefore, to send two other experts for completing the job. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 claimed special and general damages to the extent of Rs. 24,098/ 66 paise and Rs. 8929/33 paise respectively. plaintiff No 3 claimed damages to the extent of Rs. 4,666/67 paise as expenses incurred in connection with the sending of two other experts.

(2.) The suit of the plaintiffs was contested on behalf of the defendants Besides controverting the various allegations, made in the plaint; the defendants had taken up the preliminary objection that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit was expressly barred by the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) The Court framed a preliminary issue whether the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit in view of the provisions of section 110 F of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court held that the claim of plaintiffs Nos 1 and 2 was barred under the provisions of that section and that through the claim of plaintiff No. 3 was not so barred yet as there was no prayer for splitting the claims, claim of plaintiff No. 3 could not be tried and the plaint as a whole was to be returned. On the basis of this finding, the Court ordered the retarn of the plaint to the plaintiffs.