The claim petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act must allege negligence on the part of the owner or driver of the vehicle to be maintainable.

1. This petition for revision is directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, dated 18th March, 1969, whereby the application of the petitioner under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act was rejected by the Tribunal.

2. It is common ground that the bus which was being driven by the petitioner met with an accident on the 27th February, 1968, and that the petitioner was injured. The petitioner moved an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondent contested the application. A preliminary issue was framed which reads thus :

"Whether the present claim petition is competent in spite of the fact that the claimant was the driver of the vehicle and it is not alleged that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of that vehicle and the accident is attributed to mechanical defect ?

3. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the application was not maintainable because it had not been alleged that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent act on the part of the owner of the motor vehicle. It was clearly stated in the petition that the accident took place because the tie-rod gave way. In other words, the accident was a result of a mechanical defect. The petitioner was the driver of the vehicle and was supposed to know as to whether the vehicle was properly maintained by the owner or not. If there was any lack of maintenance it was open to him to refuse to drive the vehicle which he did not do in this case. However, the decision turned against him on the short ground that no allegation as to negligence on the part of the owner in maintaining the vehicle was made. It is no doubt true that under section 110-A, an ignorant claimant can miss the point that he can only get compensation if negligence either of the driver or of the owner is proved, but in the present case it was clearly indicated that the petitioner could not succeed without alleging negligence. At no stage during the proceedings an attempt was made to amend the petition so as to allege negligence. In fact, no prayer was made that the petitioner be permitted to lead evidence on the preliminary issue to prove negligence of the owner. In this situation, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he should be allowed permission to amend the application.

4. The only other contention raised was that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal could award compensation to the petitioner under section 3(5) of the Workmens Compensation Act. No authority in support of this contention has been produced.

In fact, the language of section 19 of the Workmens Compensation Act is clear. It bars the jurisdiction of all Courts and Tribunals and makes the decision of the Commissioner final. It was open to the petitioner to have moved the Commissioner under the Workmens Compensation Act but he chose the forum of the Claims Tribunal and he has failed on the short ground that he neither alleged negligence nor he led any evidence to prove negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, he can make no grievance in the present petition.

5. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.