The amendment to S. 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which gave the Claims Tribunal jurisdiction to entertain claims for damages to property, did not take away the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain such claims.

G. B. PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF is the appellant against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Jajpur, in money Suit No. 30 of 1973.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF is the owner of a truck bearing registration number ORU 1197. The plaintiff avers that while the said truck was proceeding towards Paradeep, it had a breakdown and the truck was being repaired on being parked on the non-metal portion at the extreme left of the Express Highway on 30-3-1972. At 5. 30 a. m. while the said truck was in a stationary position, another truck bearing registration number ORU 139 belonging to the defendant 1 came with a high speed from the opposite direction and dashed the standing truck of the plaintiff and pushed down the same below the embankment in consequence of which the vehicle ORU 1197 suffered heavy damage. The truck of defendant 1 at the relevant time was being driven by defendant 2. The plaintiff then gave several notices to defendant 1, the owner, as well as defendant 4, the insurer, to get his truck repaired, but since nothing was done, the plaintiff filed the! present suit claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 13,765. 98 representing the cost of repairs, appended in Schedule-A to the plaint and Rs. 12,000/- as damages towards loss of business due to forced idleness of the vehicle, appended in Schedule-B to the plaint, in all totalling to Rs. 25,765. 98. 2a. Defendant No. 4 was the original insurer, but after the nationalisation of the general insurance, defendant 3 took over the management and control of the affairs of defendant 4 and, therefore, both the insurance companies were arrayed as defendants.

( 3 ) TWO sets of written statements were filed - One set by defendant 1 and the other by defendant 4. Defendant 1 denied all the allegations made in the plaint and alternatively pleaded that in case plaintiff was entitled to get any damages, then the same was to be paid by either the insurer, defendant 4, or the driver, defendant No. 2. Defendant 4 also denied all the averments made in the plaint and took a stand that the suit itself was not maintainable. The said defendant further averred that there being no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the said defendant, the plaintiff could not make the said defendant liable. Defendant 2 remained ex parte.

( 4 ) ON these pleadings, the Subordinate Judge framed four issues and on issue No. 1, relating to the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit, held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the Amendment Act 56 of 1969 enlarged the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal by bringing within its purview the power to award compensation for damage to the property as well, and by necessary implication ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, inasmuch as only a reference is contemplated and not a regular suit on the basis of common law principles as was being done prior to the amendment. It was further held that the driver (defendant No. 2) was negligent in driving the vehicle and also there was an element of rashness on his part in driving the vehicle. On the question of quantum of damages, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the estimate of damage prepared by P. W. 2 should be taken as genuine and correct and the claim of compensation for idleness of the vehicle was also well-founded. The learned Judge ultimately concluded that the plaintiffs claim of damages amounting to Rs. 25,765. 98 was well-founded, but in view of the finding on issue No. 1 that the suit is not maintainable and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as such, the plaintiff was not entitled to the claim. On these findings, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit.

( 5 ) MR. S. S. Basu, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the conclusion of the Subordinate Judge on the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court was erroneous and was based upon mis-interpretation of the relevant provisions of the M. V. Act and the said conclusion was liable