A claim for compensation for damage caused to property preferred by a third party can be tried by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in all circumstances, as per the amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act.

R.C. Lahoti, J.

1. A learned single Judge of this Court while hearing an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has framed the following question of law and referred the same for the opinion of the Division Bench:

Whether a claim for compensation simpliciter for damage caused to property, preferred by a third party, in all circumstances, can be tried by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in respect of an accident where claim is preferred or preferable also for bodily injury suffered or for death?

2. A car No. CPH 87 met with an accident on 7.7.1981 having been hit by another car registered as MPW 9669 approaching from the other side. The occupants of the car got injured. The car was also damaged. On 20.8.1981 a joint claim petition was preferred which included the claim for compensation for bodily injuries sustained by the occupants of the car as also for damage to the car. However, as a measure of abundant caution, to avoid any legal objection in future, a separate claim was preferred by the owner-claimant P.N. Vijaiwargiya claiming compensation for damages suffered only by the car in the accident to the tune of Rs. 16,000. This P.N. Vijaiwargiya is undisputedly a third party.

3. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 11,508.50 on account of damages to the car.

4. The learned single Judge entertained a doubt as to the maintainability of the claim petition only for compensation for damages suffered by the car and noticed two divergent lines of decision: Banwari Lal v. Vishnunarayan 1975 ACJ 40 (MP); Manohar Singh v. Canara Motor & General Insurance Co. 1977 ACJ 280 (MP); Han Industries v. Roshan Lal Kothari 1987 ACJ 20 (Rajasthan), taking the view that such a claim was maintainable; Yaswant Raj v. Mohan Lal 1985 ACJ 23 (Rajasthan) and R. Vanamaraju v. A.P.S.R.T.C. 1984 ACJ 336 (AP), taking the view that such a claim was not maintainable.

5. The correctness of the view taken by the two Division Benches of this Court has been doubted on the ground that they based their decision only on the construction of the notification establishing the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as contemplated under Section 110 of the Act, but failed to take into consideration the effect of the proviso to Section 110 (1).

6. Section 110 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), reads as under:

110, Claims Tribunals.-(1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinafter referred to as 'the 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, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both:

Provided that where such claim includes a claim for compensation in respect of damage to properly exceeding rupees two thousand, the claimant may, at his option, refer the claim to a civil court for adjudication, and where a reference is so made, the Claims Tribunal shall have no jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to such claim.

7. It is interesting to note that in the text of Section 110 (1), as it originally stood, the provision terminated with the words 'motor vehicles'. Material changes were effected by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act No. 56 of 1969) not only in Section 110 but in various related provisions. Section 57 of the Amendment Act substituted the following words in place of the words 'motor vehicles' in Sub-section (1) and also added the proviso thereafter: motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both.

Section 95 of the Act, as it originally stood, was also suitably amended and Clause (b) as occurring in Sub-section (1) of Section 95 as it originally stood was deleted and substituted by a fresh provision so as to read as under:

95. Requirem