JUDGMENT - Patel, J.

(1) The appellants are the widow and sons of one Lallu Rathod, who died in a motot accident. The accident occurred on 25th May 1957 at about 1-25 P. M. at the junction of the Queenss Road and the Princess Street, by car bearing No. BMZ 6532. The car belonged to respondent No. 1 and was being driven either by respondent No. 2 or respondent No. 3. As the plaintiffs had not enough funds to pay court fees, they filed an application to sue in forma pauperis in the City Civil Court about the early part of 1958. They claimed Rs. 15,000/- as damages on all grounds, for the death of Lally Rathod.

(2) The application was pending before the Registrar for enquiry into their pauperism in November 1960. In October of 1959 by notification dated 28th October 1959 the State Government constituted a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal with effect from 1st December 1959 under section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. It appears that in view of section 110-F of the Said Act the Registrar of the City Civil Court returned the plaint for presentation to the Tribunal.

(3) The appellants then filed their claim petition before the Motor Accident claims Tribunal on 23rd November 1960. Tis application lay dormant until it was discovered by the Tribunal while taking inventory of the applications pending before it. A notice was duly sent to the applicants. The Advocate for the applicants appeared and the question as to whether the application was maintainable before the Tribunal was considered. The Tribunal examined the provisions of the Act and came to the conclusion that as the accident had occurred prior to the establishment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and as the proceeding was already commenced in the City Civil Court at Bombay, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. It returned, therefore, the application to the appellants. The appellants filed a Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution, being, Spl. C. A. No. 399 of 1964. The appellants also filed an appeal from Order, Being A. O. No. 252/64 with an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Delay in filing the appeal has already been condoned.

(4) The question that falls for consideration is whether the Tribunal is right in its decision when it held that as the proceedings was already pending in the City Civil Court it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. A similar question arose in a different form in Appeal No. 484 of 1960 decided on 17-8-1961 (Bom) where the accident had occurred on 22nd May 1959 but the suit for recovering damages was filed in the City Civil Court after the Tribunal came to be established with effect from 1st Dec. 1959. The Division bench, of which I was a member, held that inasmuch as the proceeding for damages was commenced after the establishment of the Tribunal, the Tribunal would have jurisdiction to deal with the matter but in respect of proceedings which were pending in the City Civil Court before the Tribunal came to be constituted the City Civil court would continue to have jurisdiction and that jurisdiction would not be lost. subsequently, a similar question came up for consideration in Khatumal Ghanshamdas, v. Abdul Qadir Jamaluddin, AIR 1961 Madh Pra 295, where the question arose directly before the High Court. The High Court held that the section which took away the jurisdiction of the Court did not affect retrospectively pending suits in Civil Court and that the regular Courts continued to have jurisdiction in the matter.

(5) The relevant provisions are sections 110 and 110-F of the Act. Section 110 enables the State Government to constitute Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for areas notified by it for adjudicating claims for compensation for death or injuries arising out of accidents by the use of motor vehiccles. Section 110-F ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for the area to entertain any question relating to any claim triable by a Tribunal.

(6) It is a well-settled rule of construction

Click Here to Read the rest of this document