( 1 ) THESE connected Civil Revisions have come before us upon reference made by a learned single Judge. The revisions are directed against identical orders passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Allahabad, disposing of certain preliminary issues. The main question which was debated before us was with regard to the decision of the court below on the issue whether a claims Tribunal exercising powers under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has jurisdiction to entertain a claim against the Railway. The contention raised by the Union of India (the applicant herein) through the General Manager, Northern railway was that the claims in question -- all of which arise out of the same accident involving a tempo-Taxi and the Allahabad-Saharanpur Passenger train -- are not maintainable against the railway as under the Act a decree can be passed only against the insurer or owner or driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. It cannot be passed against any one else.

( 2 ) BEFORE we set out the rival contentions and deal with them we may briefly set out the relevant facts. The various claimants were travelling by a Tempo-Taxi No. UPZ 7184 which collided with the Allahabad-Saharanpur Passenger at Sarai Gopal Railway crossing on 28-7-1977 at 10-15 A. M. As a result, the claimants sustained bodily injuries. Thereafter they filed claim petitions before the aforesaid Tribunal against both the owner of the tempo-taxi as well as the applicant, namely, the Union of India represented by the General Manager, Northern Railway. In the claim petition it was alleged that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the employees of the Railway staff at the aforesaid level crossing. The employees had wrongly kept the level crossing wide open for the highway traffic to pass at a time when the aforesaid train happened to be passing through that point.

( 3 ) THE applicant has filed written statements in all these claim petitions. The assertions in paragraphs 25 and 26 of the written statements are that the claim for compensation in respect of death or bodily injuries arising out of the use of a motor vehicle is entertain-able only against the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim against the Railway. A claim against the Railway is triable only by the civil Court.

( 4 ) ON the aforesaid pleadings one of the preliminary issues framed by the Tribunal under the impugned order is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim as alleged in the applicants written statement. The court below has answered this issue against the applicant. It has held that inasmuch as the claimants allege to have received injuries in an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, which the tempo-taxi undeniably is, the Tribunal would clearly be entitled to entertain the claim under the Act and to award compensation.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant made Section 110-B of the Act the sheet anchor of his argument He submitted that Section 110-B clearly points to the conclusion that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to make an award only against either the insurer or the owner or the driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident and against no one else.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, submitted that the extent of jurisdiction of the Tribunal is defined and outlined in Section 110 of the Act. It is therefore the language and interpretation of Section 110 which will be decisive of the controversy. Section 110 is sufficiently widely worded to include within its ambit any claim for compensation in respect of an accident involving death or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. If the death or bodily injury has been caused in an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicles, then a claim in respect of such an accident would lie before the Tribunal con