ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Annexure A to the writ petition.

2. The facts of the case are very simple. The Petitioner is the owner of a motor truck insured by opposite party No. 6. On 26th of October, 1966, this motor truck was being driven on Delhi Meerut route by the driver when an accident occurred and one Kishun Lal sustained injuries. Kishun Lal died the next day on account of the injuries sustained by him. The heirs of Kishun Lal Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 thereafter filed a civil suit claiming compensation of Rs. 45,000/- in forma pauperis. The suit was filed on 5th of January, 1967, and the application in forma pauperis filed along with the suit was disposed of on 25th of April 1967. The application was rejected. The Respondent, as it appears did not pay the court fee which was the necessary consequence of the rejection of the application in form a pauperis. For that reason, it is stated, the suit could not proceed further.

3. In March, 1967 a Claims Tribunal for the area to determine the claims arising under the Motor Vehicles Act was constituted and before this Tribunal on 20th November, 1967, opposite parties Nos. 2 to 5 preferred their claim by way of application to it. Along with the application the opposite parties also filed an application u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, for condoning the delay in filing the application. The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the application for hearing. The Petitioner thereafter appears to have challenged the order of the Tribunal by way of appeal in this Court which appeal was dismissed on 13-11-1968 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Dwivedi holding that the appeal was not competent. Thereafter the Petitioner has preferred this writ petition against the order of the Tribunal. This pstition was filed on December 11, 1968.

4. The only question that has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter and the Tribunal was in error in holding that it could entertain the claim in the instant case. To appreciate the point it is necessary to reproduce Sections 110(1) and 110A(2) and (3) and Section 110-F which are as follows:

110-(1). A State Govt, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor 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.

110-A(2). Every application under Sub-section (1) shall be made to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

110-A(3). No application for compensation under this section shall be entertained unless it is made within sixty days of the occurrence of the accident:

Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of sixty days if it is satisfied that the Applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.

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 be 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.

5. The argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that Section 110F of the Act which was introduced by the amendment of 1956 does not affect the right to file a suit in respect of a cause of action which had accrued before the constitution of the Accidents Claims Tribunal. The civil court has jurisdiction to entertain such a claim for