Under the proviso to Sec. 110(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the claimant must first approach the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and request it to refer the matter to the Civil Court if they so choose. The claimant cannot directly file a civil suit for compensation for damage to a vehicle resulting from an accident.

Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SEC. 110, 110-A - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE TO VEHICLE AS A RESULT OF ACCIDENT - WHETHER CIVIL COURT HAS JURISDICTION - INTERPRETATION OF SEC. 110 AND 110-A - HELD, CIVIL COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (RTC), filed a suit in the Civil Court seeking compensation for damages to its bus resulting from a collision with the respondent's bus. The trial court partly decreed the suit, awarding compensation and limiting the liability of the insurance company to Rs. 2,000/-. On appeal, the High Court held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction under Sec. 110 read with Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act), and directed the RTC to approach the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal within four weeks.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the RTC for compensation for damages to its bus resulting from an accident. The court interpreted Sec. 110 and 110-A of the Act and concluded that the claimant must first approach the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and request it to refer the matter to the Civil Court if they so choose. The court reasoned that the proviso to Sec. 110(1) contemplates that the claimant can opt to get the matter decided by the Civil Court by making a reference to it through the Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for compensation for damage to a vehicle as a result of an accident. 2. Interpretation of Sec. 110 and 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit for compensation for damage to a vehicle as a result of an accident. 2. The court interpreted Sec. 110 and 110-A of the Act and concluded that the claimant must first approach the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and request it to refer the matter to the Civil Court if they so choose. The court reasoned that the proviso to Sec. 110(1) contemplates that the claimant can opt to get the matter decided by the Civil Court by making a reference to it through the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the RTC, confirming the trial court's order that the suit was not maintainable.

( 1 ) THE short question that arises in this L. P. A. is whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed for claim of compensation for damage to a vehicle asa result of an accident. On 28-6-1976, there was a collision between the bus of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short the r. T. C. ) which is the plaintiff and appellant herein, and the bus belonging to the first respondent and as a result, the bus of the R. T. C. which was stationary was damaged. Alleging that accident occurred as a result of negligent driving of the bus of the first respondent, the R. T. C. filed suit in the Court of Additional district Judge, Nellore, claiming Rs. 47,428/- towards damages. The learned district Judge partly decreed the suit awarding Rs. 12,759/- only with interest at 6% per annum with a direction that liability of the Insurance Company which is second respondent herein is limited to Rs. 2,000/ -. Against this judgment, the owner of the private bus filed appeal A. S. No. 159 of 1982 raising various contentions including the contention that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The learned single Judge held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction under Sec. 110 read with Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (briefly referred to as the Act ). Allowing the appeal the learned Judge also observed that it is open to the R. T. C. to approach the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal within four weeks from the date of judgment and that various other contentions raised regarding merits of the claim may be canvassed before the tribunal. Being aggrieved by this the R. T. C. has preferred this appeal.

( 2 ) SRI P. Gangarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the R. T. C. contends that Clause l (sic. sub-section (1)) (aa) in Sec. llo-A of the Act was introduced by Act 47 of 1978 with effect from 16-1-1979 enabling an application for compensation to be filed by owner of the property and hence in respect of accidents that took place before 16-1-1979 as in the present case, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim regarding damages to the property and consequently the Civil Court has jurisdiction under Sec. 9 of the Code of Civil procedure. He further contends that though even before the said amendment, sec. 110, which deals with the constitution of the Tribunals, refers to adjudication by Tribunal of claims in respect of damages to property of a third- party, as Sec. 110-A of the Act was amended only on 16-1-1979, the Civil Court had jurisdiction.

( 3 ) SECTION 110 (1) and 110-A (1) omitting Explanation which is not relevant read as follows:- "sec. 110. Claims Tribunals: (1) - A State Government, may by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims tribunals (hereinafter referred to as 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: (amended by act 56 of 1969) provided that where such claim includes a claim for compensation in respect of damages to property exceeding rupees two thousand, 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, (amended by act 56 of 1969) explantion:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression "claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles" includes claims for compensation under Section 92-A". "sec. 110-A Application for compensation - (1): An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100 may be ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1995 Supreme(AP) 946

Andhra Pradesh High CourtJudges : LINGARAJA RATH, S.DASARADHA RAMA REDDYA.P.S.R.T.C., General Manager., Hyderabad - AppellantVersusK.Chandra Reddy alias k.Chandrasekhara Reddy - RespondentDecided On : 12-12-95

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : LINGARAJA RATH, S.DASARADHA RAMA REDDY
A.P.S.R.T.C., General Manager., Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
K.Chandra Reddy alias k.Chandrasekhara Reddy - Respondent
Decided On : 12-12-95