KUDAL, J.—This is a Civil Misc. First Appeal under section MOD of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated October 28, 1971.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on January 15, 1969, Dr. Achal Mal Singhvi was driving his own car bearing No. RJQ, 7513 on the Chopasani Road, Jodhpur. He was coming from 4-A Road. He took a turn towards Sanishcharji-ka-than on the main Chowpasni Road. He had hardly driven the car a few feet after taking the turn when a truck No. RJS 359 dashed against the applicants car. It was stated that the driver of the truck was driving it at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The mud-guard and the hood of the car on the left side were damaged. The applicant, Dr. Singhvi, also received simple injuries on his body, and it was contended by him that he also received a great mental shock. A composite claim was filed before the Claims Tribunal in which claim for damages to the car as well as for bodily injury to the applicant was made. The learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 500/ as damages for the injuries received on the person of the applicant, but dismissed the claim with regard to the damages to the car holding that the Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim with regard to the damages caused to the car. The applicant, Dr. Singhvi, feeling aggrieved has filed the present appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Claims Tribunal seriously erred in law in holding that the Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award compensation in respect of the damage to the car where a composite claim has been made before the Claims Tribunal with regard to the damage to the car and also with regard to the injuries received on the person of the applicant. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Dr. Om Prakash Mishra vs. Mational Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. (1). Reliance was also placed on Joshi Ratansi Gopaji vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2), Farsubhai Altap Bhai Saiyed vs. Dullabhahal Bhagabhai (3) and State of Assam vs. Urmila Dutta (4). On the strength of these rulings, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the view taken by the Claims Tribunal would lead to multiplicity of proceedings, and that in such a contingency if a claim pertaining to the injury on the person of the applicant was to be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal and the claim regarding the damages to the car was to be adjudicated upon by a Civil Court the possibility of conflict of decisions could not be ruled out. It was also contended that the intention of the Legislature is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings as far as possible.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has seriously contested that the Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a claim regarding the damage the car. His contention is that the Claims Tribunal has rightly held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim pertaining to damage to car. Reliance was placed on R. Selvaraj vs. Jagannathan (5). B. S. Nat vs. Bachan Singh(6) and Ved Prakash Sethi vs. M/s Musafir Transport Go. Ltd., Mansa(7). It was also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the accident took place on January 15, 1969 and the claim was also adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal on October 28, 1971, and as such the amendment in section 110 (1) could not be availed of.

5. The respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. Sec. 110(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act as it stood before the amendment by Act No. 56 of 1969 read as under:—

"A State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinfter referred to as Claims Tribunals) for such area as may be specified in the notifications for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document