RATANSINH KARANBHAI NAKUM Vs. ISADKHAN GULAMKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application raises a question whether a claim of a third party arising out of the use of motor vehicle alone lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal constituted under sec. 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereafter referred to as the Act in view of the amendments carried out in sec. 110 by Act No. 56 of 1969 which admittedly came into force with effect from March 2 1970 The accident in the present case took place on September 21 1973 and the claim made in this case relates to damage to the motor car of the petitioner alone. The petitioner was not bodily injured in that accident. According to the interpretation of sec. 110-A (1) (a) by this High Court in FARSUBHAI V. DURLABHAI 1973 ACCIDENTS CLAIMS JOURNAL 149 (13 GUJARAT LAW REPORTER 674) such sort of a claim would not be entertainable by the Tribunal. This would follow from the interpretation of sec. 110-A (1) (a) laying down that only three categories of persons can make an application contemplated by sec. 110A; and they are (a) by the person who has sus- tained the injury; or (b) where death has resulted from the accident by the legal representatives of the deceased or (c) by any agent duly autho- rised by the person injured or the legal representatives of the deceased as the case may be. The question is whether any difference is made in this view as a result of the amendment of sec. 110 of the Act even though no further amendment was carried out in sec. 110-A by amending Act 56 of 1969. The learned Judge acting as the Tribunal was struck by the fact that inspite of the amendment of sec. 110 further amendment was not carried out in sec. 110-A. He therefore preferred to follow the decision in Farsubhais case (supra) as regards interpretation of sec. 110A. On that basis he found that the petitioner not having been inJured and his vehicle only having been damaged cannot make a claim to damages on that count before the Tribunal. The result was that on this sole ground he dismissed the application for compensation leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Being aggrieved by this order the original petitioner has come in revision to this Court.

(2.) The relevant provisions of the Act should be set out first. In doing so the amended portions of sec 110 and 110-A would be put in paren- thesis showing thereby that those portions were brought in by way of amendment by Act No. 56 of 1969.

(3.) So far as the amendments in sec. 110-A brought about by the bracketed portions mentioned above are concerned the original words for which the bracketed portion was substituted in clause (b) were by the legal representatives and in clause (c) or the legal representatives and in sub-sec. (3) the said words were sixty days.