The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Claims Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims falling under the head 'consequential pecuniary losses' in relation to torts concerning property.

Radhakrishna Menon, J.

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, for short, The Corporation, the claimant in O.P. (MV) No. 164 of 1985 of the M.A.C.T. Manjeri, is the appellant.

2. Facts relevant and requisite to dispose of the appeal can briefly be stated thus: The bus bearing Registration No. N. 487 belonging to the Corporation was operating on the route Mundakkayam - Nilambur. On 23-10-1984 when this bus was ascending a slope near the place called Naripoil, the bus, driven by the first respondent, (for short the private bus ) was seen coming from the opposite direction at an abnormal speed and without sounding the horn. The driver of the Corporation stopped the bus on the

left side of the road. The other bus hit the Corporation bus causing damage to the same. The Revenue loss suffered by the Corporation during the period when the bus was off the road was assessed at Rs.99600/-. This claim was in addition to the claim falling under the head 'repair charges'. No other point, apart from the one dealt with the para 10 infra arises for consideration in the appeal, according to the parties.

3. The respondents including the Insurance Company contested the claims.

4. After considering the various aspects of the first point the Tribunal found that the accident can be attributed to the negligence of the driver of the private bus. The compensation for repairing the vehicle was fixed at Rs.10672.65. The compensation claimed for loss of Revenue on account of the non-availability of the bus to ply on the route was denied on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such claim. On the merits of this case the Tribunal has found that the Corporation is not entitled to get compensation under the head 'loss of income'. It is this order of the Claims Tribunal that is under challenge in this appeal.

5. The main question arising for consideration is whether or not the Claims Tribunal has the jurisdiction to award compensation for the loss of Revenue on account of the deprivation of the use of the vehicle for the period of time when it was garraged.

6. The answer to this question depends upon the construction of S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (corresponding to S.165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). Construing S.110 of the 1939 Act a Division Bench of this court in General Manager K.S.R.T.C. v. Sarasamma, 1987 (2) KLT 135=1987(2) ACJ 926 has held thus:

"The direct damage to property alone is taken by the words 'damage to the property'. 11" there is any claim for damages suffered by the owner of motor vehicle which was involved in an accident, apart from the claim for damage to the vehicle itself, it will thus have to be preferred before a-civil court since the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such claim".

This opinion expressed by the Division Bench, in our view, correctly reflects the intention of the legislature in enacting S.110, namely to confer jurisdiction on the Claims Tribunals 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 damages to any property of a third party so arising or both.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant nonetheless argued that the words employed in S.110 of the 1939 Act corresponding to S.165 of the 1988 Act namely "damages to any property" in fact empowers the claims tribunal to award compensation for the deprivation of the use of the vehicle during the period, when it was under repair. In support of this contention the counsel relied on a recent decision of the Karnataka High Court in Karnataka State Road Trans.Corpn, v. V.K. Abdul Majeed (1991 ACJ 453). The Division Bench considering a similar argument has held that it is a settled position in law that the concept of damage to property includes compensation for loss of use or loss of income directly resulting from damage. The Division Bench has further held that by amen