The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for compensation arising out of accidents involving motor vehicles and other vehicles, including trains, where negligence of the motor vehicle driver is alleged, even if the other vehicle is not a 'motor vehicle' as defined in the M.V. Act.

1. - These revisions arise out of a common order dated 16.5.1991, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, whereby the said Tribunal passed an interim award of pay merit of Rs. 25,000/- to the claimants in each case under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the M.V. Act').

2. The brief relevant facts of these cases are that on 7.8.1990, when a school bus No. RJ-14A - 2611 was carrying students, it dashed with a train at railway level crossing. At the railway level crossing there was no gate and, therefore, the claimants claimed that the accident was due to negligence of drivers of the railway train and also of the bus.

3. A question was raised before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that it had no jurisdiction to pass interim award against the railway as the train does not fall within the definition of motor vehicle. The Tribunal overruled the objection vide its order dated 16.5.1991 and passed an interim award as mentioned above. Against this order of the Tribunal, the Union of India has filed separate revisions in each case. As the Tribunal has passed one order in several cases, as such all these revisions are decided by one common order.

4. I have heard Mr. R. N. Mathur on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. G.C. Mathur on behalf of the claimants non - petitioners. The only question argued by Mr. Mathur is that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass interim award against the railway.

5. Section 165 of the M.V. Act reads as under:

165. Claims Tribunals.(1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunals) for such area as may be specified in the notification 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 third party so arising, or both.

Explanation - For the removal of doubts, it is, hereby declared that the exptession 'claims for compensation in respect of, accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles' includes claims for compensation under Section 140.

Section 166 of the said Act provides for submission of applications for claims before the Claims Tribunal.

6. Section 2(28) of the Act defines the words 'motor vehicle', which reads as under :

(28) 'motor vehicle' or 'vehicle' means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding thirty - five cubic centimetres.

7. Mr. Mathur, counsel for the petitioner, argued that according to the definition of the 'motor vehicle' in Section 2(28) of the aforesaid Act, it is apparent that a vehicle running upon fixed rails is not a motor vehicle and as such if there was an accident between a rail and bus, the case does not fall within the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tribunal constituted under the said Act has no jurisdiction to decide the compensation against the petitioner. He argued that the order passed by tire Tribunal, awarding Rs. 25,000/- to the claimants in each case, is without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. In support of his arguments, Mr. Mathur placed reliance on the following judgments: Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India 1975 ACJ 33 (AP); Union of India v. Bhimeswara Reddy 1988 ACJ 660 (AP); Rajpal Singh v. Union of India, 1986 AC) 344 (P&H); Union of India v. Hanunian Prasad Aganvalla 1989 ACJ 857 (Calcutta) and Union of Ind