UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARESHBHAI TULSIBHAI KANJIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the present petition is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The present petition is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22-7-2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Surendranagar passed below the application exh. 22 filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.425 of 1998, for getting interim compensation.

(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar below the application for interim application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is absolutely dehors to the power, jurisdiction and authority. It is also contended that whenever there is a vehicular accident between the motor-vehicle/s and train carrying the passengers, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has no jurisdiction, authority and powers to entertain any application for compensation, damages etc. It is also submitted by the petitioner that in such cases instead of preferring the application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the application ought to have been preferred under Section 125 of the Railways Act, 1889 to be read with Section 124 thereof and u/s 13 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 before the Railway Claims Tribunal and only, the Railway Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction, authority and powers to entertain the application for compensation in case of an accident between the motor vehicle and the railway carrying passengers. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied upon Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and submitted that the railway engine or a vehicle running on fixed rail is excluded from the purview of the word "motor-vehicle" or the word "vehicle" and hence the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction, power or authority to award any compensation much less under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, popularly known as "No fault liability". Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is dehors to the provisions of law. It is also submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that whenever there is special Act namely the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, the said Act shall prevail upon the Motor Vehicles act, 1988. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and hence the impugned order is illegal and erroneous and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.