1. Has the civil court the jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the claims tribunal for that area?

2. The plaintiff alleged that his car parked on the extreme left side of the Holy Angels Convent Road within the city of Thiruvananthapuram was hit on its side by a bus at 8.30 a.m. on 11.08.2000. The bus belonged to the first defendant Corporation (The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation) and was driven by the second defendant at the material time during one of its routine trips. A portion of the bumper and the side glass of the car was damaged and the painting on its body was also scratched to a considerable extent due to the hit by the bus resulting in loss to the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that the second defendant issued Ext.A1 receipt undertaking to bear the repair charges for the car to be done by its authorized maintenance centre - TVS workshop. The plaintiff asserted that he had spent a sum of Rs.18,568/- towards repair charges evidenced by Exts.A7 and A7(a) cash bills issued by the maintenance centre. The suit for realising the sum of Rs.18,568/- was filed on the basis that the second defendant has not paid the repair charges as undertaken and that the first defendant is also vicariously liable.

3. The defendants filed a joint written statement denying the entire incident and also contended that the plaintiff had parked his car in a negligent manner on the busy road which could have been damaged. It was further contended that the signature of the second defendant was obtained in a blank paper as a condition for allowing the bus to continue its trip which was later fabricated into Ext.A1 receipt. The defendants maintained that they are not liable to make good the loss allegedly suffered by the plaintiff and that there is no obligation to pay the sum of Rs.18,568/- demanded. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that Ext.A1 receipt has been executed against public policy obviously to overcome the registration of a criminal case for causing material damage to property. The lower appellate court in appeal by the plaintiff decreed the suit holding that the second defendant has shouldered his responsibility to meet the repair charges on the basis of Ext.A1 receipt. The first defendant was directed to pay the sum of Rs.18,568/- with interest thereon to the plaintiff and the same was permitted to be realised from its employee the second defendant.

4. I heard Mr. P.C. Chacko, Advocate on behalf of the revision petitioners and also Mr. K.B. Pradeep, Advocate on behalf of the respondent. A Civil Revision Petition was filed since the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. The defendants assail the judgment of the lower appellate court in the Civil Revision Petition contending inter alia that it lacks jurisdiction.

5. A cursory look at the averments in the plaint reveals that the amount is claimed as compensation in respect of an accident involving damages to a property of a third party arising out of the use of motor vehicle. The relevant part of the averments in the plaint is extracted below:

“The cause of action for the suit has arisen on 11.08.2000, the date on which the damage was sustained to the vehicle due to the negligence of the 2nd defendant, on 20.09.2000, the date on which the last demand for payment of the said amount was made by the plaintiff and continuously thereafter at Vanchiyoor village, where the accident took place, which is within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court.”

The road where the accident allegedly took place runs between the General Hospital junction and Vanchiyoor falling within the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The said tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 'Act' for short) is clothed with exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any claim for compensation of the natur