The expression `injury' in unamended S. 110-A does not include damage to property.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under S. 110-D Motor Vehicles Act, is at the instance of the petitioner-claimant. The petitioner filed a petition under S 110a. Motor Vehicle, Act, for award of compensation of Rs. 8,200 with interest from the date of accident for the damage caused to the shop of the petitioner in a bus accident. The petitioner is the proprietor of cloth shop at Razole. On 31-1-1977, -a bus belonging to A. P. S. R T. C. ran into his shop and destroyed his show-case and furniture. As the bus approached the shop of the petitioner which was in the main road, Razole. it was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent 2 and entered into the - _ petitioners shop. The front portion of the shop was damaged and a tailor received minor injuries. Because of the impact of the bus, show-cases and almirah, lights, a sewing machine, a cycle, a table fan and other articles worth Rs. 3,200 were destroyed. The petitioner suffered shock and he was unable to carry on his business for some time and thereby the business turnover in his shop suffered considerably. The estimate of loss in business is made at Rs 4,000 and for mental shock, the claim of Rs. 1,000 is claimed. Respondent f opposed the claim by stating that the bus was not driven rashly or negligently by respondent 2 driver. but the accident occurred due to a cyclist and another person going on a motorcycle. suddenly crossing the road. The bus was then going at a speed at 15 Km per hour and suddenly a cyclist came in front of the bus carting an other person on the carrier of the cycle. At the same time. another person riding a motor cycle. also carrying one more person on its saddle. came in the opposite direction on the right side. The motor cyclist crossed the road to the other side and so, the driver of the bus had to swerve it to the right side. and as the brakes failed, the accident occurred. The bus did not crash into the shop and no damage was caused to the property. But for the failure of the brakes the accident would not have occurred. The petitioner did not suffer any loss or damage or mental shock and the claim deserves to be rejected. Respondent 2 in a separate counter denied- the allegation of rash and negligent driving. it is also denied that the bus dashed against. the shop and the petitioner or anybody else sustained injuries in the alleged, accident. The issues were framed regarding; the rash and negligent driving by respondent and the quantum of compensation payable. The Court below held that there is no satisfactory and clinching proof of the bus having been driven by respondent 2 rashly and negligently; but some damages appears to have been caused by the dashing of the bus against the shop. In so far as quantum of damages. the court below held that the petitioner is not entitled to award of any compensation in consequence of the accident in question:

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that admittedly, the bus hit against the shop and in view of the damage caused to the shop, the court below should have awarded damages, as claimed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent at the outset raised a preliminary objection that this claim for claimant of the property is not maintainable as the accident occurred on 31-1-1977 and claim petition was filed on 11-7-77 prior to the amendment made in S. 110-A. Motor Vehicles Act, by inserting cl. (aa) providing for award of damages to the owner of the property and in any event the petitioner is not entitled to the award of any compensation in the circumstances. To appreciate the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. it is necessary to get at Ss. 110 and 110-A, Motor Vehicles Act, to the extent relevant :"11 Q. Claims Tribunals : (11 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