ZARIN RUSTOMJI MUNSHI MISS Vs. SANTUBHAI MANILAL PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The special civil application No. 261/67 and the civil revision application No. 227/67 are both concerned with a claim arising out of the same accident called by a motor vehicle and as they raise identical questions and have been argued together they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The material facts are these. One Miss Zarin Rustomji Munshi is the petitioner in both the cases. She was studying in M. Sayajirao University Baroda when while she was proceeding on the university road also known as the national highway road on her bicycle on 6-2-1963 at scout 8.50 A.M. she was knocked down by a motor truck No. GTA 5429. That truck was driven by one Santubhai Manibhai Patel who is respondent No. 1 in both the cases. The truck belonged to one Bhupendra Chunilal Patel who is respondent No. 2 in both the cases. Respondent No. 3 in the special civil application is the Universal Fire and General Insurance Company. That Company is not made a party to the civil revision application. After the accident because of the serious injuries sustained by the petitioner she was removed to the hospital and was an indoor patient upto 26-2-1964. After her discharge from the hospital she made a claim for compensation under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to be presently mentioned before the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act. The Claims Tribunal for the area in question was the District Judge Baroda. Before the Claims Tribunal it was urged on behalf of the opponent namely the driver of the motor truck the owner and Insurance Company that the Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction as It had been constituted after the date of the accident. That contention was upheld by the Claims Tribunal and the application for compensation was ordered to be returned to the applicant for presentation to the proper Court. This order was passed on 26-7-1965. The petitioner then approached the Civil Court. Senior Division at Baroda which would in that case have jurisdiction to entertain her claim That suit was filed on 8-10-1965. Before the Civil Court it was urged on behalf of the driver of the truck and the owner who were party-defendants in the suit that the Civil Court had on jurisdiction as the jurisdiction lay exclusively with the Claims Tribunal even if that Tribunal had been constituted after the date of the accident as that tribunal was made. That contention was accepted by the Court on the basis of a decision of this High Court to be presently mentioned. The Court therefore made an order returning to plaint to the plaintiff for presenting it before the Claims Tribunal to establish her claim. this order was made on 27-6-1966. In September 1966 these two petitions were filed namely the special civil application and the civil revision application.

(3.) The point whether the Claims Tribunal or the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claim under consideration is now concluded 80 far as this Court is concerned by the decision of this Court in Natverlal v. Khodaji (VIII G.L.R. 771). The facts of that case being similar to the facts of the present case may be mentioned. There the accident arising from the driving of the motor truck took place on 26th July 1962 and in that accident one Somaji Khodaji met with his death. On that date there was no Claims Tribunal in existence for the area concerned. The Claims Tribunal for that area was constituted by a Notification Issued under sec. 110 of the Act on 28th June 1963. Now the representatives of the deceased Somaji preferred an application before the Claims Tribunal on 24th July 1963 claiming compensation for the death of Somaji. The application was directed against the owner of the motor truck the driver of the motor truck and the insurance company with whom the truck was insured. They contended that since the accident had occurred prior to the constitution of the Claims Tribunal or at any rate beyond a period of sixty days before the constitution of the Claims Tribunal the Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim under sec. 110A of the Act. The Claims Tribunal tried this as a preliminary issue and held that it had jurisdiction. Against this order the owner of the motor truck had preferred the special civil application. this Court held that no suit having been filed in respect of the claim prior to the constitution of the Claims Tribunal the Claims Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the claim for compensation on a true construction of secs. 110A (3) and 110F. The facts in the present case are similar to the facts of that case. The accident in the present case took place on 6-2-1963. The claims Tribunal for the area concerned was constituted by Notification dated 4-7-1963. Before that date no suit had been filed by the petitioner claiming compensation. In fact she was an Indoor patient in the hospital. She was discharged as earlier stated On 26-2-1964 and then she filed the application before the Claims Tribunal. Therefore having regard to the ruling in the case in Natverlal v. Khodaji (supra) the Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain and decide this application or compensation and that jurisdiction was exclusive. On that view of the matter so far as the civil revision application No. 227 of 1967 is concerned it is not tenable and the rule issued In that application will theretofore have to be discharged.