( 1 ) ON 26th July 1962 one Somaji Khodaji met with his death as a result of an accident caused by a motor truck within the area of the Mehsana District. At the date of the accident there was no Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Claims Tribunal) in existence for the area of the Mehsana District but on 20th June 1963 such Claims Tribunal was constituted by the State Government by a notification issued under sec. 110 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 The legal representatives of Somaji Khodaji thereupon preferred an application before the Claims Tribunal on 24th July 1963 claiming compensation for the death of Somaji Khodaji. The application was directed against the owner of the motor truck the driver of the motor truck and the insurer with whom the motor truck was insured. The owner of the motor truck and the insurer resisted the application and amongst the various defences taken by them was one relating to the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal. They contended that since the accident had occurred prior to the constitution of the Claims Tribunal or at any rate beyond a period of sixty days before the constitution of the Claims Tribunal the Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim under sec. 110-A and the application was therefore liable to be dismissed. The Claims Tribunal tried this issue as a preliminary issue and following the decision of the Bombay High Court in Abdul Mahomed v. Peter Leo DMellow 66 Bom. L. R. 551 held that the Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain claims arising out of accidents which occurred more than sixty days prior to the constitution of the Claims Tribunal provided they were not timebarred at the date when the Claims Tribunal was constituted. The Clai-ms Tribunal accordingly rejected the preliminary objection of the owner of the motor truck and the insurer and directed the application to proceed further. The owner of the motor truck thereupon preferred Special Civil Application No. 110 of 1966 and the insurer preferred Civil Revision Application No. 80 of 1966 challenging the decision of the Claims Tribunal.

( 2 ) THE main question that arises for consideration in these two cases is whether the Claims Tribunal constituted under sec. 110 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 has jurisdiction to entertain claims in respect of accidents which occurred prior to the constitution of the Claims Tribunal. The determination of this question depends on the true interpretation of certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 as amended by Central Act 100 of 1956 but before I refer to these provisions it is necessary to notice how the law stood at the date when these provisions were brought on the statute book. Prior to the enactment of these provisions the legal representatives of a deceased person who died as a result of an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle could sue the wrongdoer for damages in the ordinary civil Courts by virtue of the provisions of the Indian Fatal Accidents Act 1855 and the period of limitation provided for such suit by Article 21 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 was one year computed from the date of death of the deceased person. It was felt by the Legislature that this remedy by way of suit in the ordinary Civil Courts was an expensive remedy and used to take long before effective relief could be obtained by the unfortunate dependents of the deceased person who might in many cases be rendered destitute and helpless as a result of the death of the deceased person. The Legislature therefore with the object of providing a cheaper and more expeditious remedy introduced by way of amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 a group of sections consisting of sec. 110 in its present form and secs. 110-A to 110-F by Central Act 100 of 1956 which came into force on 16th February 1957. These sections provided a complete self-contained machinery for adjudication of claims for compensation in respect of accide