S. DASARATHARAMA REDDI, J. :, J.

( 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 as a result of an accident On28-6-l 976, there wasacollision 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. Allegingthat accident occurred as a resultof 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. 47,4287-towards damages. The learned district Judge partly decreed the suitawarding 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 Section 110 read with section. 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 j udgment 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 1 (aa) in Section. 110-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 presentcase, the Tribunal has nojurisdiction to entertain the claim regarding damages to the property and consequently the Civil Court hasjurisdiction under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further contends that though even before the said amendment, section 110, which dealswiththeconstitution of the Tribunals, refers to adjudication by tribunal of claims in respect of damages to property of a third-party, as Section 110-A of the Act was amended only on 16-1 -1979, the Civil Court hadjurisdiction.

( 3 ) SECTIONS 110 (l)and 110-A (1) omitting explanation which is not relevant read as follows:-"section 110. Claims Tribunals: (l):- A state Government, may by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one more motor Accidentsclaimstribunal (hereinafter referred to as Claims Tribunals) for such area as may be specified in the notification forthepurposeofadjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising outofthe use of motor vehicles or damages to any property of a third party so arising or both: (amended by Act 56 of 69) 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 69) explanation:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression "claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death ofor bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles" includes claims for compensation under Section 92-A. ""section 110-A Application for compensation- (l): An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 100 may b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document