The Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles. The words "involving death of or bodily injury to" are limitative of the type of accident and not of the claim for compensation arising out of such accidents involving composite injuries.

1. A plaint in a suit filed by the appellant for the recovery of Rs.2000/- as pensation for the loss of or damage to his car in a motor accident has been returned by the Sub Judge at Chandigarh under O.7, R.10. Civil P. C. for presentation to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter briefly referred to as the tribunal) on the finding that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The plaintiff has come up in appeal.

2. On 3-10-1961 at about 8.45 a. m. the appellants car No. PNP-670 collided with truck No. PNE-7759 on the road dividing sectors 18 and 19 in Chandigarh Capital. The truck belonged to defendant-respondent No.2 and was being driven at the time of the accident by defendant-respondent No.1. It was insured with M/s. Oriental Fire Insurance Co. , defendant-respondent No.3. The appellant not only sustained personal injuries in the accident but his car was also damaged. The appellant filed a separate claim in respect of his personal injuries before the Tribunal and it has been stated at the bar that the claim has since been allowed. In respect of the damage to his vehicle, the appellant filed a separate claim in the Civil Court under the impression that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation arising out of loss of or damage to property in a motor accident.

3. The objection with regard to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court was taken by the counsel for the defendant-respondents after the issues had been framed and evidence examined on the merits of the case. The view taken by the trial Court than an objection as to inherent jurisdiction of a Court or Tribunal can be taken by a party at any stage and that the party is not estopped from raising that plea by any amount of waiver or acquiescence has not been challenged before me. I would therefore proceed to examine the question whether such a claim for compensation would lie in a Civil Court or before the Tribunal appointed under S.110 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. For facility of reference, the pertinent provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939) (hereinafter briefly referred to as the act) are reproduced below :" Sec.110 (1) : A State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (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 injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles. (2) * * * * (3) (4) * * * * (5) (6) * * * * Sec.110-A (1) : An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Sec.110 may be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury ; or (b) where death has resulted from the accident, by the legal representatives of the deceased; or (c) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or the legal representatives of the deceased; as the case may be. (2) * * * * (3) (4) * * * * (5) Sec.110-F :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 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. " The learned Sub-Judge has relied on a Division Bench ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dr. Om Prakash Mishra V/s. National Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. , AIR 1962 Madh Pra 19, in coming to the finding that where a motor accident leads to both to personal injuries and damages to property, described by the Division Bench as a case of composite injury, the entire claim would be triable by the Tribunal. The relevant portions of the ruling have been reproduced in the impugned order of the Sub-Judge and four