Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and K. L. Pandey, J.
KHATUMAL GHANSHAMDAS - Appellant
Versus
ABDUL QADIR JAMALUDDIN - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 86 Of 1960
Decided On : 01/25/1961
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 110-F - RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION - CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - CIVIL COURT'S JURISDICTION - OUSTER - CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION - ACCIDENT OCCURRING BEFORE CONSTITUTION OF TRIBUNAL - PENDING IN CIVIL COURT - TRIBUNAL'S JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN.
Fact of the Case:
A claim for compensation was made before the Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in respect of a bodily injury caused to the claimant by a truck owned by the petitioner and driven by the opponent. The accident occurred before the constitution of the Tribunal. The Tribunal overruled the petitioner's objections that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim and that there was no ground for condonation of the delay in filing the application for compensation. The petitioner filed a petition under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India for a direction restraining the Tribunal from adjudicating upon the claim.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which ousts the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, does not have retrospective operation so as to apply to claims pending in civil courts at the time of the constitution of the Claims Tribunal. The Court further held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim in question, which was pending in a civil court at the time of the Tribunal's constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, has retrospective operation so as to apply to claims pending in civil courts at the time of the constitution of the Claims Tribunal? 2. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claim in question, which was pending in a civil court at the time of the Tribunal's constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Section 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, does not have retrospective operation so as to apply to claims pending in civil courts at the time of the constitution of the Claims Tribunal. The Court relied on the well-settled rule of construction of statutes that no statute, unless it be a statute dealing with procedure only, should be construed to have a retrospective operation unless it so provides either expressly or by a necessary implication or intendment, and that a Statute is not to be construed to have greater retrospective operation than its language renders necessary. 2. The Court held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim in question, which was pending in a civil court at the time of the Tribunal's constitution. The Court held that Section 110-F does not affect the claims for compensation pending in a civil Court in respect of accidents taking place before the constitution of the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and restrained the Claims Tribunal from entertaining and adjudicating upon the claim for compensation preferred by the claimant. The Court directed the civil court in which the claim was pending to proceed with it according to law.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a suitable direction restraining the Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, from adjudicating upon a claim for compensation made by the opponent No. 1 Abdul Qadir in respect of a bodily injury caused to him by a truck owned by the petitioner and driven by the opponent No. 2 Lachhmandas on 24th August 1958.
( 2 ) THE accident occurred on 24th August 1958 in Bhopal. The State Government constituted a tribunal for this area under Section 110 of the Act by the Home Department's Notification dated the 7th August 1959. The Tribunal was not in existence before this date. Before the constitution of the Tribunal, the opponent Abdul Qadir made an application on 20th August 1959 in the Court of the Additional District Judge Bhopal, for being allowed to sue as a pauper for claiming the relief of compensation of Rs. 41,080/- on account of the injury caused to him from the petitioner and the opponent Lachhmandas. During the pendency of an enquiry into his pauperism, Abdul Qadir preferred a claim for compensation before the Tribunal on 10th September 1959. He also applied under the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 110-A for condonation of the delay in filing the application for compensation. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner raised the objections that the claim for compensation being one arising out of an accident occurring before the constitution of the Tribunal could not be entertained by the Tribunal, and that there was no ground for condonation of the delay in the filing of the application for compensation. Both these objections were overruled by the Tribunal,
( 3 ) THE question raised in this petition as to the competency of the Tribunal to entertain Abdul Qadir's claim for compensation turns on Sections 110 (1) and 110-F of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 110 empowers the Government to constitute by a notification one or more Motor Accidents 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. Section 110-F is as follows : "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 betaken by or before the Claims Tribunal in respect of the claim for compensation shall be granted by the Civil Court. " It is clear from these provisions, and especially from the opening words of Section 110-F "where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area", that civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation on account of a motor vehicle accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, a person is excluded only on the constitution under Section 110 of a Claims Tribunal for the area concerned. There can be no doubt that a claim for compensation in respect of accidents occurring after the constitution of the Tribunal can be entertained by the Tribunal alone. The question here is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain a claim in respect of an accident taking place before its constitution. This involves the question whether Section 110-F has retrospective operation so as to apply even to a claim for compensation pending in a civil Court.
( 4 ) NOW, it cannot be denied that where no Tribunal is constituted under Section 110 a claim for compensation spoken of in Section 110 (1) can be made only in a Civil Court. Section 9 C. P. C. provides that the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. When a Tribunal is constituted under Sec
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
