K PUSHPAVATHI Vs. K BHARAT BHUSHANAM NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that arises for consideration in this LPA would be whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short "the old Act") is having jurisdiction to entertain a claim by the injured person, when the vehicle in which he was travelling met with an accident at an un-manned railway crossing by hitting the passing train.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The tractor in which the son of the claimants was travelling, involved in the accident on 30-11-1986 at an un-manned railway crossing at Kongaravaripalle, by hitting the passing rail engine and the victim died on the spot. Thereafter, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 92-A of the old Act i.e., under no fault liability, claiming an amount of Rs. 15,000.00 as compensation. But the Tribunal as well as this Court, dismissed the claim petition on the ground of jurisdiction, by relying on a judgment of this Court reported in Union of India v. Bhimeswara Reddy, 1988 (1) ALT 769, wherein the learned single Judge relied on a Division Bench of this Court in O.F.& G. Insurance Company v. Union of India, AIR 1975 AP 222.

(3.) As far as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in O.F, & G. Insurance Company's case (supra) is concerned, we have carefully examined the facts. That case had arisen under Workmen's Compensation Act and the question that arose before the Division Bench was, whether the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred in view of Section 110-F of the old Act. Their Lordships of this Court, have taken the view that the Tribunal under Section 110-F of the old Act is constituted to adjudicate upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, against the owners or the drivers of the motor vehicles or the insurer of the motor vehicle. Their Lordships further proceeded and observed, "to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that it would include claims against all persons would lead, in our view, to consequences which were never contemplated by the framers of the Motor Vehicles Act." In support of this view, they have given illustrations by stating that the owners of the buildings or the owners of the trees cannot be made liable to pay compensation to the victims, even though they are travelling in the motor vehicle. But regarding the principle, their Lordships held that "In our view, the claims referred to in Section 110 are applicable only to cases of claims against the owners or the drivers of the motor vehicles or the insurer as the case may be and not as against strangers. The proper forum for adjudicating the claim against the stranger is a civil Court. The jurisdiction of the civil Court is not in our view barred by Section 110-F of the Act." In paragraph 11 of the said judgment, their Lordships noticed that as the accident took place on 20-1-1962, and the Tribunal was constituted for the first time on 23-5-1963 and since there was no Tribunal as on the date of the accident or on the date when the claim was made, it was held that the injured persons or the legal representatives of the deceased could seek redressal in a civil Court and the provisions under Section 110 of the Act are not applicable. From the above it is seen that the principle laid down in this case s that no claim petition is maintainable under Section 110 of the old Act against strangers even though the accident occurred out of the use of a motor vehicle in public way.