Claim petition not maintainable before Civil Court.

Sathiadev, J.

1. The point involved in this revision petition is whether the suit filed in Sub-Court, Vellore, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 35,000 by way of damages suffered by plaintiffs jeep bearing Registration No. TNJ 1470 in a collision with the lorry bearing Registration No. MDT 4606 belonging to defendants 1 and 2, is maintainable?

2. It is claimed that, at about 11.15 a.m. on 29.12.1979, when the jeep was passing through the Palar Bridge near Vellore, the lorry was coming in the opposite direction and as it was being driven rashly and negligently, it collided with the jeep and ran over a man and killed him. A sum of Rs. 35,000 had to be spent to put the vehicle back on the road. Therefore, this suit had been filed. Apart from the other defences taken, one of the points taken was that, the claim for damages to the vehicle is no longer maintainable in a Civil Court, because of proviso to Section 110A (1) and 110F of the Motor Vehicles Act. The trial Court held that the plaintiff having exercised the option to seek for remedy before a Civil Court, it had the jurisdiction to try the suit and posted it for trial of other issues. It is against the finding on this preliminary issue, this revision petition is preferred.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision in R.S.R.T. Corpn. v. Kistoori Devi (FB) and claims that all the relevant decisions on this aspect have been considered in the said decision, and it covers the point involved in this revision petition. In the said decision, the point which came up for consideration was, whether the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act would override or exclude the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, in case the fatal accident occurs by use of a motor vehicle. It is not a decision which deals with the question as to whether after constitution of the Tribunal, the claim relating to damages to any property of a third party arising in a motor vehicle accident could be instituted in a civil court or not. That was a case in which compensation was claimed in respect of a fatal accident, which was occasioned: by use of a motor vehicle. Hence, it was not an authoritative pronouncement, which is relevant for the point which has come up for consideration in this case.

4. He also relies upon the decision in R. Thillai Govindan v. Karuppusamy 91 L.W. 563 which holds that, after the amendment effected by Act 56 of 1969, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal got enlarged, so as to cover the subjects added by the amendment and one of them being the claim relating to damages to property of a third party upto a limit of Rs. 2,000 the same could be decided by the Tribunal. The point which arose therein was, whether in spite of the amendment effected, the Tribunal would still be governed only by the limitations in the G.O. passed in 1961; and the learned Judge held that, when the statute is amended, the jurisdiction got enlarged to that extent, and thereafter, the earlier G.O. cannot re-strict its jurisdiction. This decision does not deal with the point involved in the revision petition.

5. On behalf of the plaintiff/respondent, Mr. Phillips, learned Counsel, relies upon the decision in Selvaraj v. Jagannathan and Anr. I.L.R. (1968)1 Mad. 688 which arose before the 1969 amendment, and it was held that any claim for damages to the vehicle could be tried only by a Civil Court because:

... The Tribunal is a creature of the statute and its jurisdiction is strictly limited by the terms of such statute. It cannot be allowed to exceed its limits on any general principle of law. The jurisdiction should be delimited strictly in terms of the statutory definition thereof.

It was further held that, unless it is expressly or by necessary implication taken away from the purview of Civil courts by a competent legislation, such suits would be maintainable.

5. After the 1969 amendment, an option is given to the claimant either to have it decided by the Tribunal or by a Civil Court, in instances in which a compo