The amendment to Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which gave the Tribunal jurisdiction to adjudicate on claims for compensation for damage to property, was procedural in nature.

1. Vide my order dated Oct. 25, 1979 I had allowed the appeal of the claimant and awarded compensation for Rs. 1,250/- for the injuries caused to him, arising out of the accident. The claim regarding damages due to the death of the two bullocks and damage to the cart was, however, declined on the ground that the claim petition, regarding the same was not maintainable before the Tribunal under Section 110 of the Act as in force at the time of the accident. In fact, the learned counsel for the appellant had also conceded the proposition of law in this regard. The said judgement was dictated in Court. However, a little time later, Shri H.S. Sangha, learned counsel for the appellant met me in the chamber and brought to my notice judgement of Bhopinder Singh Dhillon, J. reported as Union of India V/s. Bakhtawar Singh, 1978 80 Pun LR 558 according to which, the Tribunal was within its jurisdiction to allow compensation as regards the damage to the property even in those cases where the accident had taken place before the amendment of S.110(1) of the Act. Consequently and in the interest of justice, I have reheard arguments on this point.

Section 110(1) of the Act is to the following effect :-

110. Claims Tribunal. - (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motors 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 or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both : Provided that where such claim includes a claim for compensation in respect of damage to property exceeding rupees two thousand, the claimant may, at his option, refer the claim to a civil Court for adjudication, and where a reference is so made, the Claims Tribunal shall have no jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to such claim.

2 The words "or damages to any property of a third party so arising or both" were added by the amending Act 56 of 1969 with effect from Mar. 2, 1970. Thus, in the present case at the time of the accident which took place on Mar. 26, 1969, the Tribunal constituted under S.110 by the State Government, as mentioned above, was not vested with the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the claims for compensation regarding damages to property. However, at the time the Tribunal passed the orders under appeal, it had undisputably been vested with the jurisdiction in this regard. Relying on a Division Bench judgement of this Court in Unique Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Kartar Singh, AIR 1965 Punj 102 and some other cases, the learned single Judge in Bakhtawar Singh s case (supra) held as under :-

"But fact remains that the Tribunal processed the claim regarding the damage of the property which claim was made in the application and when the said claim was tried, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to do so. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Unique Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay V/s. Kartar Singh; V.C.K. Bus Service (P) Ltd., Coimbatore V/s. H.B. Sethna, (AIR 1965 Mad 149), Joshi Rotansi Gopaji V/s. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (1968 Acc CJ 338 (Guj)) and Palani Ammal V/s. State Service Ltd., (1966 Acc CJ 19 (Mad)). It has been held in the abovementioned judgements that the trial of the claim is at the most a procedural matter. Even though the Tribunal had no jurisdiction when the cause of action took place, still if no such claim has been preferred before the civil Court and subsequently the jurisdiction was vested in the Tribunal, it had the jurisdiction to try the claim even though the cause of action arose when the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the same. A single Bench decision of this Court in Mulak Raj Bhola Sh