The Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claims for damages to any property of third party arising out of accident only in respect of the property, put to actual loss by the accident, owned by the claimant.

JUDGMENT - Dudhat M.L., J.:—The only limited issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the damages claimed by the respondents under the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act' for the sake of brevity) can come within the ambit of the words 'damages to the property owned by the owner'.

2. Few facts which are material for deciding this first appeal are as under:

Appellant No. 1 in this case is the owner of the vehicle which met with an accident. Petitioner No. 2 is the insurance company. The respondents are a private limited company carrying on the business in P.V.C. material claiming the damages from the present appellants of Rs. 50,000/- on the ground of failure of electric supply to their industrial unit due to the accident.

3. On 20th March, 1984 at about 4.45 a.m. tempo bearing No. MMS-2708 owned by appellant No. 1 dashed against an electric pole due to which the electric pole broke down, which ultimately resulted in failure of electric supply. Since there was total failure of electric supply to the respondents' industrial unit, the respondents installed new cable worth Rs. 10,500/ - by incurring expenses of Rs. 3,100/- for installation. It is the case of the respondents-claimants that due to this failure, the respondents suffered loss in the production for two days as their whole manufacture was suspended during that time. The respondent-company, therefore, filed their claim under section 110-A of the M.V. Act.

4. The aforesaid claim was resisted by the present appellants. Appellant No. 1 in their written statement at Exh. 14 admitted the factum about their ownership of the tempo and also about the accident damaging the electric pole belonging to the M.S.E.B. situated nearby the respondents' factory. However, appellant No. 1 denied that the concerned vehicle was driven rashly and negligently. It was contended on behalf of appellant No. I that the vehicle was driven with a reasonable speed. However, when the vehicle came near the spot where the accident took place, the driver of the vehicle saw an electric cable over-hanging on the road. Thinking the said cable as a lively electric cable, the driver suddenly tried to wheel round the vehicle due to which the driver lost the control and the vehicle banged against the electric pole. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions, it was contended by appellant No. 1 that he was not negligent and, therefore, not liable to pay any damages. It was also contended on behalf of appellant No. 1 that the claim of damages as mentioned by the respondents in their application is not maintainable under the M. V. Act, as the said claim cannot come within the words 'damages to the property as owned by the claimant'.

5. Appellant No. 2 also filed the written statement which is at Exh. 12 and took the specific plea that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim made by the respondents as the same did not come within the ambit of the words 'damages to the property owned by the claimant'.

6. The Tribunal, after going through the evidence as led by the parties and after scanning the depositions of the parties, came to the conclusion that the respondents proved that they suffered damages on account of negligence on the part of the tempo driver employed by the 1st appellant and that the application for damages made by the present respondents was maintainable under section 110 of the M. V. Act. The Tribunal also held that the electric installation in the factory of the respondents was damaged and they suffered loss of production as a direct consequence of the alleged accident. On the basis of these findings the Tribunal, by its decision dated 14th October, 1986 passed the award of Rs. 14,080/- at the interest of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing the petition i.e. from 13th July, 1984 till the realisation of the amount. This decision dated 14th October, 1986 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thane, in Motor Accident Claim No. 204 of 1984 is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document