CHHANGANI, J.—This is a defendants revision and is directed against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Baran dated 26th July, 1966 deciding issue No. 6 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and overruling the defendants objections as to the maintainability of the civil suit. The facts giving rise to revision application are briefly these :

On 15th March 1964 the plaintiff-respondent Jagdish Prasad, while going on a cycle from Kota on the Kota-Jhalawar road was knocked down at about 8 A.M. near 6th furlong of 7th mile by motor truck No. RJR 977 and received some injuries. The truck was registered in the name of M/s Yadav Motor Transport Co., Nasirabad, the defendant-petitioner No. 1 and the defendant-petitioner No. 2 is said to be one of the partners of the Yadav Motor Transport Co. Defendant-petitioner No. 3 Ghasiram is said to be the driver of the truck. At the time of the accident there was no Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Claims Tribunal) in existence for the area in which the accident took place. However, Government of Rajasthan, in the exercise of the power conferred by sec. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 issued notification dated 9th November 1964 constituting Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for the areas specified in column 3 of the notification. The District and Sessions Judge, Kota was constituted a Tribunal for districts Kota, Bundi and Jhalawar. It was after the constitution of this Tribunal that the plaintiff-respondent Jagdish Prasad filed a suit in the court of the District Judge which was transferred to the court of the Senior Civil Judge on 12th March, 1965, claiming an amount of Rs. 70,000/- as compensation. The defendants resided the suit and inter alia pleaded that the Civil court had no jurisdiction to try the suit after the constitution of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under sec. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The trial court framed a number of issues. Issue No. 6 covered the defendants objection as to the maintainability of the suit and reads as follows :

Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit ? The trial Judge referred to the cases cited before him by the counsel for the parties and then emphasised the fact : "A claim is to be filed before the Tribunal within two months from the accident, therefore, by the time the Tribunal was constituted no time remained to file this instant claim before the Tribunal as the period of two months from 15th March 1964 had already expired". The judge thereafter observed "It shows that the bar under sec. 110-F does not apply to the facts of the instant case as it was a question relevant to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the "Claims Tribunal". Without commenting upon the cases he observed: "None of the above cases is on all fours with the case in hand and none of the cases has decided to oust the jurisdiction of the civil court. The likely anomaly is the abrupt closing of remedy in a civil suit by the constitution of the Claims Tribunal on 9th November 1964 without there being any positive alternative remedy to the plaintiff" With these observations the Court directed issue No. 6 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have come in revision.

2. During the pendency of the revision the petitioners No.2&3 died but as the petitioner No.l is competent to agitate the controversy raised in the revision petition the revision was heard on merits. The question for determination is whether sec. 110 F bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of a claim made after the constitution of the Tribunal even though the claim arose out of the accident occurring before the constitution of the Tribunal. It may be mentioned however that the question relating to the jurisdiction of the Civil court to continue the trial of cases which had been entertained before the constitution of the Tribunal does not arise or call for examination.

3. It may be pointed out that prior to the introduction

Click Here to Read the rest of this document