CHANAN SINGH Vs. TARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide my order dated Oct. 25, 1979 I had allowed the appeal of the claimant and awarded compensation for Rs. 1,250/- for the injuries caused to him arising out of the accident. The claim regarding damages due to the death of the two bullocks and damage to the cart was, however, declined on the ground that the claim petition. regarding he same was not maintainable before the Tribunal under Section 110 of the Act as in force at the time of the accident. In fact, the learned counsel for the appellant had also conceded the proposition of lam in this regard. The said judgment was dictated in Court. However, a little time later Shri H. S. Sangha, learned counsel for the appellant met me in the chamber and brought to my notice judgment of Bhopinder Singh Dhillon, J. reported as Union of India v. Bakhtawar Singh, 1978-80 Pun LR 558 according to which, the Tribunal was within its jurisdiction to allow compensation as regards the damage to the property even in those cases where the accident had taken place before the amendment of S. 110(1) of the Act. Consequently and in the interest of justice, I have reheard arguments on this point.

(2.) Section 110(1) of the Act is to the following effect:- 110. Claims Tribunal.--(1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motors Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinafter referred to as Claims Tribunals) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating 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 or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both: Provided that where such claim includes a claim for compensation in respect of damage to property exceeding rupees two thousand the claimant may; at his option, refer the claim to a civil Court for adjudication and where a reference is so made, the Claims Tribunal shall have no jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to such claim. The words "or damages to any property of a third party so arising or both" were added by the amending Act 56 of 1969 with effect from Mar. 2, 1970 Thus, in the present case at the time of the accident which took place on. Mar. 26, 1969, the Tribunal constituted under S. l10 by the State Government, as mentioned above, was not vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the claims for compensation regarding damages to property. However, at the time the Tribunal passed. the orders under appeal it had undisputedly been vested with the jurisdiction in this regard. Relying on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Unique Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kartar Singh, AIR 1965 Punj 102 and some other cases the learned single Judge in Bakhtawar Singh's case (supra) held as under:- "But fact remains that the Tribunal processed the claim regarding the damage of the property which claim was made in the application and when the said claim was tried, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to do so. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Unique Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay v. Kartar Singh V. C. K. Bus Service (P) Ltd., Coimbatore v H. B. Sethna, (AIR 1965 Mad 149), Joshi Rotansi Gopaji v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (1968 Acc CJ 338 (Guj)) and Palani Ammal v. State Service Ltd., (1966 Acc CJ 19 (Mad)). It has been held in the abovementioned judgments that the trial of the claim is at the most a procedural matter. Even thou the Tribunal had no jurisdiction when the cause of action took place still if no such claim has been preferred before the civil Court and subsequently the jurisdiction was vested in the Tribunal, it had the jurisdiction to try the claim even. though the cause of action arose when the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the same. A single Bench decision of his Court in Mulak Raj Bhola Shah v. Northern India Goods Transport Ltd., (AIR 1962 Punj 307) was reversed by a Division Bench of this Court in Unique Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kartar Singh. The contention that the period of limitation for filing the claim before the Tribunal was sixty days whereas the limitation for filing a claim before the civil Court being one year and, therefore the accident which took place before the Tribunal was vested with the jurisdiction could be tried by civil Court only was repelled as it was observed that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction even to, extend the period of limitation in given set of circumstances. It would thus be seen that there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the claim regarding the damages to property. The finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 3 is also affirmed...."

(3.) There is no doubt that under S. 110 of the Act the State Government by constituting the Tribunal only brought into existence the forum other than the civil Court to try and adjudicate upon the claims regarding compensation in the matter of accidents resulting in injury to the person or in death. After Mar. 2, 1970, the said Tribunals were also clothed with another additional power to grant compensation even regarding damage to property, but by this provision right to claim compensation by the injured persons or the claimants of the deceased was. not created. Such a right exists under the Lam of Torts. The only change brought about by Section 110 is that in place of civil Court, another forum of a summary jurisdiction is brought into existence to adjudicate cases of claims. This being a matter of procedure, it was rightly held in the abovementioned judgment and in Unique Motor and General Insurance Company's case (supra) that if the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims of compensation regarding damage to property at the time of the decision, it as within its jurisdiction to do so though that the time the claim petition was filed such a jurisdiction was lacking. I am in entire agreement with the ratio of the decision referred to above.