D. N. Chowdhury, J. —

This appeal has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the common Award dated 23.11.89 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati in a number of claim cases arising out of the same accident.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Railways and the learned counsel for the respondents..

3. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned award on the ground that the said Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enforce a claim against the Railway administration in view of the provisions of section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (old) and of section 168(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The learned counsel in support of his contention submitted that the Railway administration will be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in a case where both the Railway administration and the owner/driver of the offending vehicle are found to be jointly responsible. According to the learned counsel, the observation of the learned Tribunal recorded in para 8 of the impugned judgment while disposing of Issue No.3 that “the accident occurred clearly due to the negligence of NF Railway administration and not due to the fault of the driver of the bus” takes the case out of the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Union of India vs. United Insurance Co Ltd & others reported in (1997) 8 SCC 683. The learned counsel further contended that in a case where the accident took place due to the sole negligence of the Railway, the claim for compensation can not be maintained before the Tribunal.

4. We may conveniently quote herein below certain excerpts from the aforesaid judgment:

“Section 110E of the Act provides for recovery of the compensation 'from any person' as arrears of land revenue and recovery under that section is not restricted to the owner/driver or insurer specified in the second part of section HOB. Obviously, the words 'from any person' are referable to persons other than the driver/owner or insurer of the motor vehicle.

For all the above reasons, we hold that the claim for compensation is maintainable before the Tribunal against other persons or agencies which are held to be guilty of composite negligence or are joint tort reasons, and if arising out of use of the motor vehicles. We hold that the Tribunal and the High Court were right in holding that an award could be passed against the Railways if its negligence in relation to the same accident was also proved.”

5. This matter was also dealt with by a Full Bench of this Court in MA (F) No. 24 of 1990 along with other cases on reference by a Division Bench of this Court. The Full Bench relying on the above judgment of the Apex Court remitted the case to the Division Bench for disposal. The law is now well settled in this regard. An award could be passed by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the Railways in relation to an accident arising out of used of motor vehicle if negligence is also proved against them.

6. In view of the settled position of law it is to be examined as to whether the observation made by the learned Tribunal holding the Railways solely responsible for the accident in this case will debar it from passing an award against the Rail way administration.

7. The contention of Mr. P. Khataniar the learned counsel for the appellant about the want of jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal can be accepted provided it is established that the accident took place solely due to the negligence of the Railway authority. For this purpose, the learned counsel of the appellant referred to certain observations of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to the negligence of Railway alone.

8. The driver of the vehicle was driving a public service vehicle carrying passengers. The driver as well as conductor of the public service vehicle owes a duty to the passenger as well as users of public roads and for up keepi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document