The jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to award compensation is restricted to claims against the driver, owner, or insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, as specified in Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) challenges the judgment and order dated 16-7-1981 of the Motor Accident Clainls. Tribuiial, Delhi dismissing the claim petition of the appellant on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award compensation against persons other than those mentioned in Section 110-B of the Act. The appellant Madan Lal Jain filed a petition under Section 110-A of the Act claiming Rs. 25,000. 00 as damages against the respondents, namely. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Contractor of the Corporation and the Water Supply and Swerage Disposal Undertaking, alleging that on 24-7-1979 he was driving two-wheeler scooter on ring road with front head-light on between 10 a and 11 P. M. , that the front wheel of the scooter fell in a pit on the road and the scooter overturned as a result of which he fell down and received grievous injuries, that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the employees of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and of the contractors engaged by the Corporation in digging the pit and not putting the warning or indication at the pit, that respondents owed a duty towards him in providing safe road and they failed in their duty by not putting up any red-light sign or any other signal the place to warn the users of the road. it has been further alleged by him that his helmet was broken and scooter was damaged, that he spent Rs. 100. 00 on repairs of scooter, and the cost of helmet was Rs. 100. 00 , that he remained under plaster for about two months and the treatment is still continuing, that he cannot bend his right leg nor can sit or squat, that he could not look after his business and his business suffered. He thus claimed Rs. 25,000. 00 as compensation. His scooter No. DHP 9148 is insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petition against them was not maintainable. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment held that the petition was not maintainable as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award compensation against persons other than insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. Hence this first appeal.

( 2 ) THE question for decision in this appeal is : what is the extent of jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 1 10 of the Act ? Sections 110 to I I OF were substituted in the Act by Act 100 of 1956 with effect from 16-2-1957. Previously all claims for compensation arising out of motor accident were treated as ordinary civil suits to be adjudi- cated by Civil Courts. By insertion of the said sections in the Act a cheap remedy was provided to the person who sustained injury and to his legal heirs. The intention was to save the heirs from payment of court fees on claims and to have a speedy remedy against the driver, the owner and the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. Sections 110 and 1103 of the Act read as under :

"110. (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 If damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both : -, Provided that where such claims includes a claim for compensation in respect of damage 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. (2) A claims Tribunal shall consist of such number of members as the State Government may think fit to appoint and where it consists of two or mo