UNION OF INDIA Vs. BHIMESWARA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant -Union is the appellant. On the intervening night of July 15/16, 1973 between 2.00 and 3.00 A.M., at the level crossing between Nandyal and Panyam Railway Station the driver of the railway engine without any lights or blowing horn dashed against the A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus which was proceeding to Tirupathi via Nandyal. Therein the first respondent and his son, the second respondent were setting in seats Nos. 11 and 12 in the third row behind the driver. As a result of the accident, the first respondent crammed between the seats and ht sustained extensive injuries and fractures. As a fact, he was in Kurnool General Hospital for about two and half months, underwent orthopedic major operation and treatments. His right foot was disfigured and he became limping. He is unable to walk even till date without the support of a stick. He laid the suit for damages In a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - against the Union and also the A.P.S.R.T.C. The trial Court granted a decree for Rs. 40,400/ - and dismissed the suit for the rest of the amount. Against the amount decreed the Union of India filed the appeal and against the interest disallow the respondents filed cross -objections.

(2.) THE defence of the appellant is two -fold -there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the engine of the passenger train and secondly that the civil suit is not maintainable. The application under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act 4 of 1949) for short, "the Act" shall be the proper form. Therefore the civil court is devoid of jurisdiction. On framing appropriate issues and after consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties; the trial Court discountenanced the defence of the appellant that the driver was not negligent nor rash in driving the train at the relevant time; it also held that the respondent sustained extensive injuries as spoken to by the doctors PWs 3 and 4 apart from his evidence as PW 1 and that he was a Public Prosecutor from 1961 to 1969 and subsequently he was the Special Public Prosecutor in several cases on behalf of the State, accordingly he suffered extensive damages. It also held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the case. Accordingly, the suit was decreed as stated earlier.

(3.) THE main question that arises for consideration is whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. It is the contention of the appellants and also reiterated by its learned Counsel that when the accident involved is on account of any bus used in a public way Section 110 of the Act attracts, before the Tribunal constituted under the Act alone has got jurisdiction to entertain the claim. I am unable to agree This matter is no longer reintegrate as far as this Court is concerned. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1977 A.P. 222 is also a case of collision between the goods train and lorry on account of which some passengers have sustained injuries apart from the death of the driver and cleaner of the lorry. One of the contentions raised on behalf of the Union in that case was that the Tribunal has got jurisdiction and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question. This Court has considered the gamut of operation of the Act in that regard. The Act was intended to be applied for speedily and expeditious trial in respect of an accident occurred on account of the user of the motor vehicle in a public way and death or injuries sustained on account thereof by the victims of the accident. The special procedure was prescribed to recover from the insurance company, it impleading the insurance company as well. Therefore, the Act was intended to apply in respect of the accident occurred out of user of a motor vehicle in a public way. There appears to be that the Act was not intended to apply for accidents occurred incidentally with the railway administration as well. This Court has pointed out that if the analogy of accidents with the railway is extended, it also encompasses within its ambit even accidents occurred due to fall of a building or a tree, the owner of the building or tree shall be made liable for damages under the Act which was not the intendment of the legislature when a special procedure was introduced under the Act. I respectfully agree with the ratio of this Court. The reasons are obvious. No doubt, the procedure under the Act is efficacious, speedy and in expensive. But the cause of action should arise only when the accident has occurred while using the vehicle on a public way and it is not as a result of collision with any extraneous agencies like collision with a railway engine or other accidents like collapse of a building, etc. If it is a collision or collapse of a building, under which incidentally the vehicle was also involved, it is not intended that the special procedure, prescribed in Section 110 -A is to be followed in regard to the claims arising under the Act. No doubt, this decision and other decisions were distinguished by a majority of the Full Bench Rajpal Singh v. and held that incidentally any vehicle is used, the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act do have jurisdiction to go into the question with great respect to the majority of the learned Judges, I am unable to subscribe to the view expressed therein. The reason is that as stated earlier, if it is extended it travels beyond the bounds of the purpose for which the special procedure is created under the Act and the Tribunal constituted, and even every cause of action other than the injuries sustained in an accident occurred when the Motor Vehicle is used can be lugged within the claims arising under the Act. That does not appear to be the intendment of the Act. Accordingly I do not find any justification to conclude that the Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction. The Civil Court alone has got jurisdiction to go into the question.