K. Thiagarajan and Another vs Thanjavur Cooperative Ltd. and Others

M. Srinivasan, J.—The respondent No. 1 filed a petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for award of compensation of Rs. 15,783.76

on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge, East Thanjavur at Nagapattinam). The claim was that the goods of the respondent No. 1

which were transported by the lorry belonging to the appellant herein file of the were lost in an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of

the lorry and that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to the value of the goods. Though one of the pleas raised by the appellant was that the Tribunal

had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim, the Tribunal framed issues and recorded the evidence. The first issue is whether the Claims Tribunal has

no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. After the evidence was completed the Tribunal passed an order on 28.10.1981 dismissing the petition on the

ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. It is also found that only the civil court has jurisdiction to try the case for damages

and not the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the respondent filed C.M.A. No. 317 of 1984 in this Court. The appeal was disposed by

judgment dated 5.10.1990. Learned Judge upheld the view of the Tribunal that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim; but held that the

Tribunal could not have dismissed the petition as such. The Tribunal ought to have returned the claim petition without entertaining the same. In that

view, the learned Judge allowed the appeal on the following terms:

Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed, the order of the Tribunal dismissing the claim is set aside and the claim petition is directed to

be returned to the appellant and on such return, the appellant is directed to present the same before the Sub-Court, Nagapattinam within three

weeks from the date of taking return, as if it is a plaint, after making such amendments, as may be found necessary and on such presentation, the

Sub-Court, Nagapattinam is directed to give the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act to the appellant and to entertain it as a suit and

dispose of the same in the light of the defence raised in the counter, which have to be treated as written statement and the evidence, oral and

documentary, already on record. On the presentation of the claim petition by the appellant before the Sub-Court, Nagapattinam, as directed

above, that court will send for the counters filed by the respondents herein as well as the exhibits and the depositions recorded in M.A.O.P. No.

30 of 1979 from the District Court, Nagapattinam and proceed to deal with the suit on the evidence already let in, both oral and documentary and

immediately dispose of the proceedings as a suit.

Aggrieved by the said directions, contained in the order of the learned Judge, the appellant has preferred this appeal. We are in agreement with

the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the appellant that the directions given by the learned Judge are wholly unwarranted. The Claims

Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The only duty of the Tribunal was to have returned the petition. The learned Judge is right in

holding that the Tribunal ought to have returned the petition. But, the further directions given by the learned Judge that the claim petition could be

presented in a civil court after suitable amendment and it should be done within a particular time specified by him are not correct. It is also not

correct to direct the Sub-Court to give the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act to the respondent No. 1 and treat the pleadings and the

evidence on the file of the Tribunal as pleadings and evidence in the suit for the purpose of the suit. Such directions are not in accordance with law.

Hence, we set aside these directions. The appropriate course will be to direct the Tribunal to return the claim petition to the respondent. On

such return, it is open to the respondent No. 1 to file a suit in the appropriate court. In such a suit it is open to the respondent No. 1 to claim the

benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act on the footing that the proceedings before the Tribunal and this Court have been pending for a long time

and it is for the trial court to decide that question. There should be fresh pleadings in the suit and the pleadings which were filed before the Tribunal

cannot be taken automatically as pleadings in the suit. It is open to either party to make use of the pleadings in the claim petition for the purpose of

contradiction before the trial court in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. It is also open to the parties to use the evidence

recorded by the Tribunal for the purpose of contradiction, etc., and otherwise the evidence cannot be treated automatically as evidence in the suit.

We are of the opinion that instead of directing the respondent No. 1 to approach the Tribunal for taking return of the claim petition, it will be in

the interest of justice to direct the Registry of the court to return the original claim petition to the respondent No. 1. The original claim petition shall

be returned to the counsel for the respondent No. 1 in this Court within one week from this date.

If and when the suit is filed by the respondent No. 1 in the appropriate court, the said court shall take all steps to dispose of the same as

expeditiously as possible by prescribing specific time limit for written statement and framing issues etc. It is better for the trial court in which the suit

is filed to dispose of the suit within a period of one year from the date of the institution of the suit. With the above directions, this appeal is allowed.

There will be no order as to costs.