Hari Industries vs Roshan Lal Kothari and Others

P.C. Jain, J.—This is an appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1985, dated 15th March, 1985, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur in case No. 120/1985, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that with regard to the claim for compensation to property the petition was not maintainable, placing reliance on Yashwant Raj Vs. Mohan Lal and Others, a judgment of this Court.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by M/s. Hari Industries arising out of an accident by Truck No. RSB 1019, belonging to respondent No. 1, which was bsing driven, at the relevant time by respondent No. 2 and was insured with respondent No. 3. As a result of the accident, petitioner''s truck No. RJR-5291 was damaged. The petitioner-appellant filed a petition claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 38,114.10 which was contested by the respondents. Issues were also framed. But, the Court without taking any evidence, on preliminary objections, held that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim and ordered the elaim petition to be returned for its presentation to the competent court, vide its order dated 15th March. 1985; Aggrieved by the order dated 15th March 1985 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

A short question is involved in this appeal. It is to be decided as to whether the Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim and award compensation in respect to the damages to the property which is caused on account of use of motor vehicle The learned Claims Tribunal, on the basis of Yaswant Rao v. Mohan Lal (supra) held that such a claim could not be entertained by the Claims Tribunal as the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the claim in respect of bodily injury or in case of a composite claim relating to compensation involving death or bodily injury and damage to property It was also held in that case that the claim in respect of loss or damage to property involved in the accident, is to be left to be tried by a Civil Court. Shri Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the case of Yaswant Rao v. Mohan Lai (supra) has lost its importance on account of an amendment having been made in Sections 110 and 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (in short, the Act hereinafter). Shri Jain submitted that by Act No. 56 of 1969, which came into force with effect from 2nd March, 1970, the expression, "Motor Vehicles of damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both was substituted. Shri Jain also pointed out that by Act No. 47 of 1978. Clause (aa) was added to Section 110-A (1), with effect from 16th January, 1979. Clauses (aa), which has been incorporated reads as follows:

(aa) by the owner of the property; or

Shri Jain placed reliance on RSRTC v. Virendra Kumar 1985 RLR 327, which is a judgment of this Court. In that case, this Court had the occasion to consider the amendment in Section 110 of the Act by the virtue of Act No. 56 of 1969. The learned Judge after taking into consideration various authorities propounding divergent views, came to the conclusion that a claim for damages to property simplicitor lies within the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal.

Section 110 of the Act has been amended, as pointed out above. The amended provision came into force with effect from 2nd March, 1978. By the amending Act, the expression, "or damages to any property of a third party so arising" and the proviso to Sub-section (1) in Section 110 of the Act was added. This amendment now enables the Claims Tribunal to entertain an application for award of damages in respect of accident involving death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of use of motor vehicle, or damages to any property to a third party so arising or both. The word injury in Sub-clause (a) to Section 110A (1) of the Act has been interpreted by various High Courts and this Court also. And there is consistency in the view that the word "injury" includes injury to property also. It means that a person whose property has been damaged in a motor accident can be said to be a person who has sustained the injury and, thus, he is entitled to maintain an application for compensation arising out of an accident, of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 110 of the Act. Further the amendment made by the Act No. 47 of 1978, which came into force with effect from 16th January, 1979, Clause (aa) was inserted in Section 110-A(1) of the Act, which further fortifies that an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 110 may be made by the owner of the property. Thus, an owner of the property is entitled to claim for damages to property. In The Deputy General Manager and Divi. Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Hubli Vs. Jyoti Constructions, Mangalore and Another, , a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court also held that the Claims Tribunal is competent to entertain a petition merely for damages to property without anything more u/s 110(1) read with Section 110-A(a) of the Act. Reliance was placed on this case by this Court in the case of RSRTC v. Virendra Kumar (supra). In view of the discussions made above, I am in perfect agreement with the view expressed in RSRTC v. Virendra Singh (supra) by our High Court and also the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Jyoti Construction (supra) and further add that the view taken in the aforsaid judgments is further fortified by the fact that a new Clause (aa) has been inserted in Section 110(A)(1) of the Act, by virtue of which an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 110 may be made by the owner of the property. Thus, the owner of the property is entitled to maintain a claim for claiming damages to property simplicitor.

Shri Bhartiya, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that in view of proviso to Section 110(1) of the Act, the Claims Tribunal is competent to entertain a claim for damages to property if the claim to property is included with the claim for bodily injury to a person arising out of use of motor vehicle. Shri Bhartiya submits that the proviso makes it clear that where the claim includes a claim for compensation in respect of damages to property exceeding Rs. 2000/-, 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. Shri Bhartiya submitted that the word "includes" is very suggestive and, thus, even after the amendment was made in Section 110 or in Section 110A of the Act, the position will remain the same that it is only a composite claim which is entertainable by the Claims Tribunal and, the view expressed by this Court in Yaswant Rao v. Mohanlal Still holds the field. I am afraid, I cannot agree with his submissions. Section 110 of the act is quite clear which provides claims for compensation in respect of accident involving death of. or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles for damages to a third party so arising or both. Proviso to Section 110(1) merely enumerates the contingency where with a claim referred to in Section 110, for compensation in respect of accident involving death or bodily injury, a claim for compensation is included in respect of damages to property exceeding Rs. 200-0/- then an option is given to the claimant to get the claim adjudicated either by the civil court or by the Claims Tribunal. It is only in that contingency that if a claimant opts to get the case decided by the Civil Court he will have to make a request to the Claims Tribunal for referring the claim to civil court for adjudication. Thus, an option is given to the claimant either to get his claim adjudicated or to see that such type of claim is decided by a civil court. Section 110-F of the Act bars the jurisdiction of Civil Court, where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area. Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 110 gives an option to the claimant to refer his claim to civil court for adjudication where the claim relates to the damage to the property exceeding Rs. 2000/- it is only when a reference is made, a Claims Tribunal shall cease to have jurisdiction in respect of such claim which has been referred to in the proviso.

The result of the above discussion is that the appeal is allowed quashing the order dated 15th March, 1985 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur, in Case No. 120 of 1985. The Claims Tribunal as jurisdiction to deal with the claim. The case, is therefore, sent back to the Claims Tribunal for deciding the claim according to law. The parties are left to bear there own costs.