The jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain claims for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is barred only when a Claims Tribunal has been constituted and not before such a Tribunal is set up.

ORDER : A daughter aged about 24 of the appellants Domingos Cardozo and Maria Quiteria Camelo died as a result of motor accident which took place on 1st of February, 1964. The motor vehicle involved was IGN-06-09 (Bedford). It was owned by respondent no. 2 Janardana Upendra Poi Kano and it was being driven by respondent no. 1 Ramraia Dattarama Naique. The parents of the deceased filed a suit in the Comarca Court at Panjim on 13-9-1965 for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation against the two respondents. The respondents took the stand in their written statement that since a Claims Tribunal under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, hereinafter called the Act, had been constituted for the territory of Goa, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. This contention prevailed with the trial court which held that Section 110 of the Act clearly implied that the claim for compensation shall be tried by the Tribunal when set up and that since the Tribunal had been established the Civil Court ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter.

2. The present appeal has been lodged for reversal of the order made by the trial court.

3. Shri Gerald Pereira has argued the case on behalf of the appellants. None has turned up on behalf of the respondents to argue the points involved.

4. Shri Pereira has placed reliance on the decision given by the Punjab High Court in the case of Mulakraj v. Northern India Goods Transport Corporation Ltd. AIR 1962 Punj 307, in support of the appeal. The facts of that case were that the fatal accident took place on 5th October 1958, the Claims Tribunal under Section 110 of the Act was constituted on 13th of March 1959, and the suit in the Civil Court for recovery of compensation was instituted on 27th of August 1959. The defendant in the suit raised the plea that the Civil Court could not try the suit inasmuch as by the date the suit was filed a Claims Tribunal had been established. The trial court accepted that contention as well founded in law and so it dismissed the suit. The aggrieved plaintiff filed a revision petition in the High Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The High Court accepted the petition and remanded the case to the trial court with the observations that the claim for compensation could be adjudicated upon only by the Civil Court and not by the Claims Tribunal because no Claims Tribunal had been set up within 60 days of the date of the fatal accident. It may be mentioned here that Sub-Section (3) of Section 110-A of the Act prescribes a limitation of 60 days for an application for compensation under the Act. In the case of Sushma Mehta v. Central Provinces Transport Service Ltd., AIR 1964 Madh Pra 133, the Madhya Pradesh High Court went a step further by holding that Section 110-F does not affect the right to file a suit in the Civil Court in respect of a cause of action which had accrued before the constitution of the Claims Tribunal, and that a Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation instituted after the constitution of the Tribunal in respect of an accident occurring before its constitution. The High Court held further that the Tribunal has no concurrent jurisdiction to entertain claims for compensation in respect of injuries caused before the constitution of the Tribunal. An identical view was taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Dr. Omprakash v. National Fire and General Insurance Co., AIR 1964 Madh Pra 136. There is some area over which there is obviously conflict between Punjab and Madhya Pradesh High Courts. Whereas the Punjab view appears to be that if during the period of 60 days following the date of accident a Claims Tribunal is created, it would be the Tribunal and not the Civil Court which would have jurisdiction, the other High Court is definitely of the view that the Tribunal will have no jurisdiction in respect of claims for which cause of action had accrued before the Tribunal was consti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document