( 1 ) THE petitioner, namely, The New India Assurance Company Limited has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the order rendered by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.), Kachchh at Bhuj dated 07. 05. 2005 passed below an application Exh. 84/a in Special Civil Suit No. 10 of 1992.

( 2 ) THE petition was admitted on 15. 07. 2005 and ad-interim relief in terms of para 9 (C) was granted whereby the order under challenge was stayed.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have instituted Special Civil Suit No. 10 of 1992 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S. D.), Kachchh at Bhuj on the allegation that late Pratapbhai Thacker, husband of respondent No. 1 Jayshreeben and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the averments and allegations that he died in a motor accident which occurred near village Hamirpur on Naliya-Bhuj road on 07. 10. 1989 at about 11. 30 a. m. The petitioner Insurance Company issued Policy bearing No. 3121160206886 for the period from 19. 04. 1989 to 18. 04. 1990. The respondents have alleged that additional premium of Rs. 8/- for L. L. to driver was also paid and contended that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to them. The respondents have further averred that the suit was filed for specific performance of the terms of the Policy. Before filing the said suit, the respondents have served notice dated 12. 09. 1989 for payment of Rs. 2 Lacs and since the petitioner Insurance Company has not replied to the said notice, they filed the said suit on the said cause of action and averred in the suit that the cause of action has arisen on 07. 10. 1989 when the death of the deceased was caused and on 28. 02. 1990 when the notice was sent. In the said suit, the petitioner filed written statement, inter alia, contending that the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and requested the Court to raise preliminary issue. The petitioner has filed an application Exh. 65 to frame the preliminary issue. Since the said prayer was rejected by the trial Court, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 11075 of 2002 before this Court and while disposing of the said petition vide judgment and order dated 18. 02. 2005, this Court directed the trial Court to decide the said issue of jurisdiction of the Civil Court as a preliminary issue and framed the issue as under :- "whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit in question in view of the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act. "

( 4 ) THE Court has also made it very clear that after recording the finding on the aforesaid issue first, if so required, the Court may decide other issues which may be framed by the Court at an appropriate stage. The Court has also clarified that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it is for the trial Court to decide the suit by considering the evidence on record. The said petition was accordingly allowed to this extent.

( 5 ) ON the matter being remanded, the same was heard by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) who by his order dated 07. 05. 2005 came to the conclusion that the Court has jurisdiction to try the said suit and passed an order to proceed further with the suit in accordance with law.

( 6 ) IT is this order which is under challenge in the present petition.

( 7 ) MR. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner with learned advocate Mr. P. V. Nanavati has submitted that Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 puts bar on jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It reads as under :-

"175. Bar on jurisdiction of the Civil Courts :-Where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area, and no injunction in respect of any action taken

Click Here to Read the rest of this document