The amendment to Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which came into force in 1970, conferred jurisdiction on the Tribunals to adjudicate upon claims for compensation on account of damage to any property. No separate notification was required after the amendment to confer jurisdiction on the Tribunals.

1. This appeal is directed against the Award of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Ludhiana dt.3-6-1974, whereby the claim petition was dismissed awarding no compensation for the damage caused to the tractor of the appellant.

2. Bhag Singh filed the claim application on 21-8-1971 for claiming compensation amounting to Rs.50,000.00 on account of an accident which took place on 26-6-1971. It was alleged that the appellant was driving his tractor GJY-9123 when bus No. PNO-7274 driven by Gurbachan Singh came there and by striking against the tractor, caused damage to it. Some minor injuries were also said to have been received by the claimant Bhag Singh. The accident took place at about 7.30 P.M. and, a report with the police was lodged. The bus was said to have been driven in a rash and negligent manner and it had come on its wrong side and thus hit the tractor. The claim petition was resisted on behalf of the respondents. The Insurance Company took the same pleas which were taken by the owner of the bus, i.e. the Manager, Sewak Bus Service Pvt. Ltd., Moga. However, on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues : -

(1)Whether the accident resulting into injuries to the claimant, was due to wrongful act i.e. rash and negligent driving of Bus No. PNO-7274 by Gurbachan Singh respondent?

(2) Whether tractor GJY-9123 driven by the claimant at the time of accident was damaged due to wrongful act of Gurbachan Singh, referred to in issue No. 1, if so, what is its effect?

(3) Whether the accident, resulting into injuries to Bhag Singh and to the tractor was due to his negligent driving of the said tractor?

(4) Whether the claimant had not license for driving the tractor, if so, what is its effect?

(5) To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled and from whom?

3. Under issue No. (1), the Tribunal found that the bus was driven in a negligent manner and by exercising some more care, the driver of the bus could have avoided the accident. It was also observed that Gurbachan Singh driver was also convicted by the Criminal Court for this offence. Under issue (2), the learned Tribunal found that the claimants suffered a loss of Rs.5,000.00 on account of the damage to his tractor. The findings on the other issues are that the petitioner was not negligent and was holding licence. Under issue No. (5), the learned Tribunal held that no compensation could be allowed for the damage to the tractor because the Tribunal could only adjudicate for the claims of compensation in respect of accidents involving death or bodily injuries to the persons arising out of the use of the motor vehicles. It was also observed that the amendment effected in the year 1969 in Sec.110 of the M. V. Act that the claims for compensation of damages to any property could be filed before the Tribunal, was of no help to the claimant because no separate notification has been issued authorising the Tribunal to adjudicate such a claim. In view of this finding the claim application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant has filed this appeal in this Court.

4. The main question to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to award compensation for the damages to the property, i.e. tractor as provided under S. 110 of the M. V. Act, (which was amended by Act No.56 of 1969, which came into force with effect from Mar. 2, 1970) without there being a separate notification authorising them to that effect after the said amendment. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that no separate notification after the said amendment was necessary and that the Tribunal was competent to award the damages with regard to the property as well. According to the learned counsel, the amendment by virtue of Act No. 56 of 1969 was by way of clarification, otherwise the Tribunal had the jurisdiction earlier as well to award compensation with regard to the property. In support of his contention, he relied upon a