ACHALMAL SINGHVI Vs. CHANO KHAN AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Civil Misc. First Appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles act against the award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated October 28, 1971.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that on January 15, 1969, Dr. Achal Mal singhvi was driving his own car bearing No. RJQ 7513 on the Chowpasni Road, jodhpur. He was coming from 4-A Road. He took a turn towards Sanishcharjika-than on the main Chowpasni Road. He had hardly driven the car a few feet after taking the turn when a truck No. RJS 359 dashed against the applicant's car. It was stated that the driver of the truck was driving it at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The mud-guard and the hood of the car on the left side were damaged. The applicant, Dr. Singhvi, also received simple injuries on his body, and it was contended by him that he also received a great mental shock. A composite claim was filed before the Claims Tribunal in which claim for damages to the car as well as for bodily injury to the applicant was made. The learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 500 as damages for the injuries received on the person of the applicant, but dismissed the claim with regard to the damages to the car holding that the Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim with regard to the damages caused to the car. The applicant, dr. Singhvi, feeling aggrieved has filed the present appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Claims tribunal seriously erred in law in holding that the Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award compensation in respect of the damage to the car where a composite claim has been made before the Claims Tribunal with regard to the damage to the car and also with regard to the injuries received on the person of the applicant. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Dr. Om Prakash Mishra v. National Fire and General insurance Co. Ltd. , AIR 1962 madh Pra 19. Reliance was also placed on Joshi Ratansi Gopaji v. Gujarat State road Transport Corporation, 1968 ACJ 338 (Guj), Farsubhai Altaphbhai v. Dullabhbhai bhagabhai, 1973 ACJ 149 : (AIR 1972 Guj 244) and State of Assam v. Urmila Datta, 1973 ACJ 414 (Assam ). On the strength of these rulings, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the view taken by the Claims tribunal would lead to multiplicity of proceedings, and that in such a contingency if a claim pertaining to the injury on the person of the applicant was to be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal and the claim regarding the damages to the car was to be adjudicated upon by a Civil Court the possibility of conflict of decisions could not be ruled out. It was also contended that the intention of the Legislature is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings as far as possible.