The jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal to entertain claims for compensation in accidents involving the use of a motor vehicle is not ousted by a finding of sole negligence on the part of a joint tort-feasor.

1. The Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railways is in appeal against the revision order of the High Court of Allahabad. By the impugned order, the High Court has upheld the order of the claims tribunal on preliminary issue as to whether the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain claim for compensation against railway administration, in the event it is held that for the accident in question there was no negligence on the part of the railway administration. A taxi came in collision with Allahabad-Saharanpur passenger train as a result of which passengers died and some sustained bodily injuries. For sustaining such bodily injuries arising out of the accident, applications were filed claiming compensation under S.110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'), against the insurer of the taxi as well as against the railway administration. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the employees of the railway staff at the railway crossing, the railway crossing having been kept open for the high-way traffic at a time the train was to pass through the point. The railway administration filed written statement taking the plea that application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act can be filed against the insurer, owner or driver of the motor vehicle and the tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim against the railway administration. In view of the aforesaid stand, a preliminary issue was framed by the tribunal and the tribunal held that if claimants have sustained injuries in an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle then the tribunal will have the jurisdiction to entertain application for claim not only against the owner or insurer of the vehicle but also against any other vehicle which came in collision, and in the case in hand, against the railway administration. Against the aforesaid order of the tribunal revision having been filed a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court referred the matter to the Division Bench and by the impugned judgment the Division Bench having upheld the order of the tribunal, the present appeals have been preferred by the grant of special leave. When these appeals were taken up for hearing on 14th February, 2002 before a Bench of two learned judges of this Court, the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India v. United India Insurance Company (1997 (2) KLT 986 = JT 1997 (8) SC 653 =1997 (8) Supreme Court Cases 683), was placed before the Court. The conclusion of the Court recorded in Para.41 of the aforesaid judgment did not find favour with the two learned judges who were hearing the matter and accordingly it was directed that the matter be referred to a larger Bench and that is how it has come before us.

2. Mrs. Indra Sawhney learned counsel appearing for the appellant railway administration contends that in respect of an application for compensation filed under S.110-A of the Act, the tribunal constituted under sub-s. (1) of S.110 can pass an award under S.110-A against the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved or by all or any of them, as the case may be. A passenger train not being a motor vehicle, no application for claim of compensation against railway administration could be entertained by the claims tribunal constituted under sub-s. (1) of S.110 if the death or injury has occurred on account of a collision between a motor vehicle and a passenger train. The impugned judgment of the High Court, therefore, according to the learned counsel is unsustainable in law. In support of this contention reliance has been placed on the decision of the Court in the case of Union of India v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (supra). It is contended on behalf of the respondent, however, that on account of a collision between a motor vehicle and a train, if death or injury is resulted to several passengers then the accident must be held to have arisen