D.S.TEWATIA, J.

1. This appeal raises a jurisdictional question of some significance. Since answer to the jurisdictional question is to take shape in the light of facts asserted in the plaint or the claim petition, it would, therefore, be appropriate first to notice the relevant facts.

2. The claimant Rajpal Singh happened to be driving Car No. CH 8851. While crossing Gate No.121 on Panchkula-Zirakpur road, which was open at that time, railway train suddenly approached the said manned railway crossing, engine whereof said to be without lights, struck against his car as a result whereof the claimant received injuries and his car was damaged; that there was no red light to stop the traffic on the road and the accident resulted due to the carelessness and negligence of the driver, the guard in question and the gateman. Since the respondents, which inter alia, included the Union of India, General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi, Shri Baldev Raj Station Master, Chandigarh besides the driver, guard of the train and the gateman questioned the jurisdiction of the tribunal to try the matter so the tribunal formulated a preliminary issue to the effect as to whether the application lies before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal answered the question against the claimants and in favour of the respondents and dismissed the claim petition.

3. The appeal in the first instance came up for hearing before Sodhi, J. who referred the appeal to the larger Bench. The appeal was then put up before a Division Bench which in turn referred the same to a larger Bench and that is how this appeal is before us.

4. In all civil matters, it is the Civil Court which has the jurisdiction to go into the claims of the kind unless its jurisdiction is either expressly or by necessary implication stands barred. Claims for compensation arising out of accidents by use of motor vehicles, till the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which added Ss.110 to 110F to the said Act, were tried by the Civil Court. The Legislature being aware of the increasing number of the accidents involving motor vehicles and the resultant misery to the persons involved in the accident or their dependents and the immediate need for financial succour provided a special forum (speedy and inexpensive) in the form of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for adjudicating upon the claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising or both and it also sought to bar the expensive and tardy jurisdiction of the Civil Court by enacting S.110F of the Act, which reads as under :-

"110F Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts. Where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Claims Tribunal in respect of the claim for compensation shall be granted by the Civil Court."

5. The determination of the parameter of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal envisaged under S.110 of the Act would depend upon the construction of the expression compensation in respect of accidents............. arising out of the use of motor vehicles occurring in S.110 of the Act. The aforesaid expression indicates that there should be an accident which should be as a result of the use of motor vehicles. Besides the aforesaid spelled out limiting words the aforesaid expression envisages no other limitations, that is, once it is held that there has been an accident as a result of the use of motor vehicle in which either a person has died or has received injuries or there has been damage to any property of a third party, the Tribunal would have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the c