NATIONAL INSURANCE CO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 5-11-1981 truck No. JKN 893 belonging to respondent 3 and insured with the petitioner was being driven by respondent 2, driver of respondent 3, when it hit an army vehicle owned by respondent 1, the Union of India near Talab Kunjwani, Jammu, on the Jammu Pathankote National Highway. As a result of the accident, the army vehicle of respondent 1 was severely damaged and the loss was assessed at Rs. 42,000/-. Respondent 1 accordingly filed a suit in this High Court for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 42, 000/-. The suit was transferred for disposal in accordance with law to the file of Addl. District Judge, Jammu. The suit was resisted and in the written statements one of the preliminary objections raised was that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for adjudicating the claims of compensation in respect of damage to any property of a third party arising after the application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and that the jurisdiction to decide such claim for damages, if any, vests in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal. On the basis of the preliminary objection, the following preliminary issue was raised :

(2.) Mr. J.L. Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that since S.110F of the Motor Vehicles Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal after the constitution of that Tribunal for that area, therefore, the jurisdiction to adjudicate claim for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicle or damages to any property of a third party so arising or both are cognizable by the Tribunal under S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act and, the institution of the suit in the civil court was not authorised by law.

(3.) Mr. J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent 1, however, submitted that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir by the Central Laws (Extension) Act, 1968 and there is nothing to show that the subsequent amendments could become automatically applicable to Jammu and Kashmir and since S.110(1) was amended in 1969, to include the damage to property of a third person as being cognizable by a Tribunal, the claim for such compensation could be preferred only in the civil court. Alternatively he argued that by virtue of the proviso to Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, where a claim includes a claim for compensation in respect of damage to property exceeding Rs. 2000/-, it is at the option of the claimant that he may institute a claim in a civil court for adjudication and if he does so, the claims tribunal would have no jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to such claim and that in the instant case, the damage involved having exceeded Rs. 2000/- the plaintiff-respondent 1 had exercised his option correctly and the suit was cognizable by a civil court.