The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the terms 'bodily injury' and 'injury' in the context of S.110 and S.110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the conclusion that S.110A(1)(a) is comprehensive enough to include claims for damages to property, even without specific mention in the provision.

1. Can, a Claims Tribunal constituted under S.110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter, the Act) adjudicate upon a claim for compensation in respect of an accident which arose on 26-5-1976 (i. e. prior to the introduction of clause (aa) in S.110A (1) of the Act) out of the use of a motor vehicle but involving only damages to property and not involving death of or bodily injury to any person? This is the question that falls for decision in this case.

2. It is not disputed that under S.110 of the Act the State Government can constitute one or more Claims Tribunals for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents arising out of the use of motor vehicles, if such accidents involve the death of, or bodily injury to persons or damages to any property of a third party, or both, and that this provision is disjunctive wherefore a Claims Tribunal so constituted has adjudicatory jurisdiction to determine compensation for either or both of (i) the death of or bodily injury to persons and (ii) damages to any property of a third party caused by an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle It is also not disputed that the Kerala State Government has constituted Claims Tribunals in this State in, terms of S.110 of the Act, conferring jurisdiction on them to adjudicate upon claims for compensation for either or both of (i) the-death of or bodily injury to persons and (ii) damages to any property of a third party caused by an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle.

3. The contention is that despite such conferment of jurisdiction as is contemplated by S.110 of the Act, an application claiming compensation solely tor damages to a property of a third party caused by an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle cannot be entertained because S.110A of the Act (as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 47 of 1978) does not mention that such a person can make an application One would have thought that a court or Tribunal invested by a statutory provision with jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a certain claim could competently exercise that jurisdiction on such jurisdiction being invoked by any one, who has a cause of action of the nature over which and in respect of which such adjudicatory jurisdiction is conferred on the Court or the Tribunal, no matter whether the statute contains or not another provision which says that such a person can make an application, in that behalf. If adjudicatory jurisdiction exists, it needs only to be invoked for its exercise, as otherwise the conferment of that power will not served any purpose. If there are provisions governing the manner in which such power is to be invoked,, certainly, it could be invoked only in that manner. If there be no provision regulating the manner of invoking that power, then it can be invoiced in any manner that is in accord with the general practice obtained in relation to invocation of the jurisdiction of the particular Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be,

4. The constitution of Claims Tribunals under S.100 of the Act is, as stated therein 'for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation Compensation, in law means, a payment to make amends for loss or injury to person or property. The claim for compensation may be on account of the death of or bodily injury to persons; or of damage to any property.

5. S.110A(1), prior to its amendment by Act 47. of 1978, provided:

"An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of S.110 may be made

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or

(b) where death has resulted from the accident by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or

(c) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:" (Proviso omitted).

6. The argument on behalf of the respondents which was accepted by the Claims Tribunal is that a person