The short question which falls for determination in this appeal is : Whether a person who has sustained bodily injuries in a motor vehicle accident can claim compensation for property damaged in the accident which is not owned by him ?

The appellant was driving a tempo, which according to him, was owned by another person, when he met with an accident caused by respondent No. 1, who was caving a bus belonging to the Government Transport Undertaking, resulting in injuries not only to his person but also damage to the tempo. He, however, made an application under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter the Act) claiming compensation not only for the injuries suffered by him, but also for the damage caused to the tempo driven by him. An objection was taken on behalf of the respondents that the appellant not being the owner of the vehicle had no right to claim compensation for the damage caused to the tempo under section 110 read with section 110-A of the Act. This objection weighed with the Tribunal which upheld the same while relying upon two decisions viz : Om Prakash v. N. F. & G. Insurance Co., AIR 1962 M.P. 19 and Farsubhai Altapbhai Saiyed v. Dullabhbhai, 1973 ACJ 149. Hence the appeal.

Answer to the question involved turns upon the interpretation of sections 110 & 110-A. Section 110(1) before it came to be amended vide Act No. 56 of 1969 read as under :

110. Claims Tribunal. - (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinafter 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.

There was conflict of opinion among different High Courts as to whether compensation under this section could be claimed for the property damaged in the accident. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Dr. Om Prakash Mishra™s case1 had taken the view that claim for compensation in respect of property damaged in an accident lay before the tribunal alone even if section 110(1) did not specifically say so, and that such inference was re-inforced by the provisions of section 110-F of the Act which excluded the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in such matters. The Court took various factors into consideration to support this view, e.g. apprehension of conflict of adjudication on the same point in case two different forums for compensation i.e., one for injury to person and other for damage to property were to be assumed, need to avoid absurdity arising out of literal interpretation of a provision in a statute where it was possible to give it its ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning to carry out the object of the statute; need to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and applicability of the principle that where the claim was a composite one, only a part of which was triable by the tribunal, it would have jurisdiction to try even that part of the claim which was triable by an ordinary civil court, as a matter incidental thereto, in order to give relief to the claimant. A similar view was taken by Gujarat High Court in Joshi Ratansi Gopaji v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and another, 1968 ACJ 338. In its view the expression involving death of or bodily injury to was limitative of the accident but not of the various claims for compensation for death of or injury to the person or damage to the property involved in it which arose out of the accident. The High Court of Madras in R. Selvaraj v. Jagannathan and another, 1969 ACJ 1 however, took a contrary view and held that compensation for damage to property could be recovered only by filing a suit in a competent civil court and that section 110 did not apply to such a case. A similar view was taken by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in B. S. Nat v. Bachan Singh and others, 1971 ACJ 37. A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document