Mr. Justice K.D. Shahi, Chairman—This is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the order dated 13.2.1995 passed by District Forum, Pauri-Garhwal by which the claim of the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 85,000/- along with interest was allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Mahavir Singh was travelling in the bus No. U.T.S. 1322 which was insured with the Insurance Company. Out of accident, the deceased suffered injuries and died. The claimants have filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Tribunal which was dismissed on limitation ground. Then she filed the case in the Consumer Forum.

3. The deceased had suffered injuries. This is not a claim by the owner of the vehicle for the damage of the vehicle. The case like this, shall squarely lie under the Motor Vehicles Act and not before the Consumer Forum. Consumer Forum has absolutely got no jurisdiction in motor accident for third parties. It has been specifically held in the ruling reported in I (1995) CPJ 3 (SC)=AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1384, Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council :

“Claim for compensation arising out of use of motor vehicle cannot be adjudicated by the National Commission. The complaint in the case of motor accident cannot be said to be in relation to any service hired or availed of by the consumer because the injury sustained by the consumer had nothing to do with the service provided or availed of by him but the injury is direct result of the accident. The accident had nothing to do with service provided to the deceased passenger. This becomes obvious when one reads the provision along with the definition of Complaint in Section 2(c) and Service in Section 2(o) of the 1986 Act. Moreover the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and, in particular the provisions in Chapter XII thereof create a Forum before which the claim can be laid if it arises out of an accident caused by the use of a motor vehicle. That being a special law would prevail over the relevant general law such as the Consumer Protection Act.”

4. The Consumer Courts are not a substitute for Motor Vehicle Tribunal and since the petition by the petitioner was rejected on the ground of limitation, it shall not create a jurisdiction in the District Forum. The judgment and order passed by the learned Forum is without jurisdiction and is, therefore, to be quashed.

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 13.2.1995 passed by District Forum, Pauri Garhwal is, hereby, quashed. The complaint is dismissed. Cost, throughout, shall be easy.

Appeal allowed.

___