BIMLA DEBI JALAN Vs. RAJA RAM SHAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Murlidhar Jalan met with an accident on the 28th October, 1963 within the compound of the factory of Messrs. Dalmia Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Khardah. As a result of the injuries suffered by the said accident, he died on the 2nd November, 1963. His mother and his minor widow preferred a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Howrah against the owner of the vehicle as well as against the Insurance Company. Issues were raised and settled. One of the preliminary issues that was raised before the Tribunal was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The Tribunal tried the said issue as a preliminary issue. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the factory premises of Messrs. Dalmia Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., was not a "public place" within Sub-section (24) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. But the Tribunal was further of the view that under Section 110 of the said Act, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents occurring at places which were not public places. In the premises, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 being the owner of the Motor Vehicle moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a rule nisi. The rule ultimately came up for hearing before D. Basu, J. and was disposed of by an order made and judgment passed on 31st May, 1967. The judgment, however, is not available. We had caused searches to be made for the judgment in the records of this Court as well as before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal but without any success. The parties were also unable to furnish any copy of the judgment. In the premises, it was not possible to reconstruct the judgment. But we have been able to gather the reasons or the grounds upon which the learned Judge disposed of the application from the arguments advanced by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties. D. Basu, J. held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction as the accident in question occurred at a place which was not a public place and, therefore, he made the Rule absolute. This appeal arises from the said decision of D. Basu, J.

(2.) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is an Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to Motor Vehicles. Sub-section (24) of Section 2 defines public place. The said definition is to the following effect:

(3.) The liability for damage is, however not limited to accidents occurring only in public places. That liability might arise under the law of Torts or under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act. How that liability has to be adjudicated in respect of accident arising out of the use of the Motor Vehicle has been provided by Section 110. Section 110 does not limit that jurisdiction only to accidents occurring in public places. The jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunals is for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents (not limited to particular places) involving the death or bodily injury to or persons arising out of use of Motor Vehicles. The scope of this section has to be understood in conjunction with Section 110-F of the Act. Therefore, from the fact that the liabilities of insurers are limited only to accidents occurring in public places, it cannot be inferred that the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunals is also restricted to accidents taking place in public places. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we are unable to accept the position that the Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain this claim. This view we are taking is in consonance with the views of the Mysore High Court in the case of K. Hanumantha Rao v. National Aeronautical Laboratory, 1973 ACJ 78 : (AIR 1974 Mys 16) and of the bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of K. Gopalkrishnan v. Shankara Narayana, .