REAVATHY AKKUR vs THIRUVALLUVAR TRANSPORT CORP. LTD.

THESE original petitions have been filed under Sec.17 read with Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. As they related to the same subject matter, they are taken up together.

THESE complainants were travelling as passengers in the bus bearing Registration No.TN-01-0521 belonging to the opposite party from Tirupathi to Madras on 17-12-92. On account of rash and negligent driving by the driver, the bus hit against a tree, resulting injuries to all the complainants. Alleging deficiency of service and negligence. THESE complainants have come forward with claims for compensation in various amounts. The Learned Counsel for the opposite party questioned maintainability of the complaint in view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the existence of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Hence the question of maintainability was taken up as a preliminary question.

The bus bearing registration No.TN-01 -0521 belonging to the opposite party in which these complainants were travelling on 17-12-92 from Tirupathy to Madras met with an accident at about 4p.m. when the vehicle dashed against the tree and caused injuries to all these complainants. The question is whether these claims ought to have been preferred before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under Sec. 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 or whether these complainants can be entertained by this Commission.

SECTION 165of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 empowers the State Government to constitute one or more Motor Accidents 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. Under Sec.170 of the Act there is a provision for impleading the insurer as a party and making it liable for compensation. The Claims Tribunal is also entitled to immediately award a sum of Rs.25,000/- in respect of the death of any person and Rs. 12,000/- in respect of the permanent disablement of any person resulting from an accident arising out of the use of a Motor Vehicle under Sec, 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, without the claimant being required to plead and establish that the death or permanent disablement was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the owner of the vehicles or any other person. No such relief can be granted by the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. SECTION 175 of the Act reads thus: "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, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Claims Tribunal in respect of the claim for compensation shall be granted by the Civil Court."

It is clear that the Motor Vehicles Act has provided a new Forum as the exclusive one for adjudicating claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles. When such an exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on a Special Tribunal, it is that Tribunal which has to deal with the matter and the jurisdiction of other Forums is ousted. The Act has also provided for appeal against the judgment of the Claims Tribunal. Section 175 clearly ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal. No doubt the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act is not a Civil Court. But the intention of the legislature is very clear that compensation in respect of accidents arising out of the use of the Motor Vehicles have to be adjudicated only by the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act. We are of the view that the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal is an exclusive Forum for deciding such claims and hence the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act cannot be invoked as otherwise parallel proceedings may be initiated leading to conflicting decisions.

WE therefore hold that these complaints for compensation in respect of accident arising out of the use of the Motor Vehicle of the opposite party are not maintainable before this Commission. These complaints have been therefore to fail. In the result all these complaints are dismissed, but without costs. Complaints dismissed. _________________