Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

F.A 0. No. 329 of 1981

Advocates

T. K. Jain
R. P. Bansal

Judges

SULTAN SINGH, J.

Acts

Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Madan Lal Jain, filed a claim under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 seeking Rs. 25,000 as damages. He alleged that on 24-7-1979, while driving his two-wheeler scooter (No. DHP 9148) on the Ring Road between 10 and 11 P.M. with the front headlight on, the front wheel fell into a pit in the road; the scooter overturned and he sustained grievous injuries. The petition alleged negligence on the part of employees of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and contractors engaged by the Corporation for digging the pit and failing to put warning signs. The appellant asserted injuries (including inability to bend the right leg or sit/squat), medical treatment (including approximately two months under plaster and continuing treatment), damage to the scooter and helmet (repairs and helmet cost each claimed at Rs. 100/-), and loss of business; he sought Rs. 25,000 in compensation. The scooter was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

The respondents (Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Corporation's contractor, and the Water Supply and Sewerage Disposal Undertaking) raised a preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable before the Claims Tribunal. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi dismissed the claim petition by its judgment and order dated 16-7-1981 on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to award compensation against persons other than those mentioned in Section 110-B of the Act (i.e., the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle involved). The appellant challenged that decision by way of this first appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

What is the extent of the jurisdiction of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act — in particular, whether the Tribunal may entertain and award compensation against persons other than the owner, driver or insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident?
Whether the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a claim against persons who are "strangers" to the motor vehicle accident is barred by Section 110-F of the Act (as argued by the appellant)?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant sought to maintain a claim under Section 110-A of the Act against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others (contractor and Water Supply & Sewerage Undertaking) on the basis that their negligence in maintaining the road caused the accident and his injuries.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Section 110 contemplates enquiry into all claims arising out of any accident of a motor vehicle (arguing a broader scope of Tribunal jurisdiction), and that Section 110-F barred the jurisdiction of Civil Courts (thus implying the Claims Tribunal was the exclusive forum).

Respondents' Arguments

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petition against them was not maintainable before the Claims Tribunal.
Implicit in the respondents' position (as recorded by the Tribunal and the appellate court) is that they were "strangers" to the use of the appellant's scooter and therefore not parties against whom the Tribunal could award compensation under the Act.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1975 Andh Pra 222	Held that the claims referred to in Section 110 are applicable only to claims against the owner, driver or the insurer of the motor vehicle and not against strangers; and that the proper forum for adjudicating claims against strangers is a Civil Court; Section 110-F does not bar Civil Court jurisdiction in such cases.	The court relied on this authority to support its conclusion that the Claims Tribunal's jurisdiction is restricted to owner/driver/insurer and that claims against the Municipal Corporation and other strangers must be pursued in a Civil Court. The precedent reinforced the Tribunal's dismissal for want of jurisdiction.
Swarnalata Dutta Barua v. National Transport India Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1974 Gauhati 31	Made similar observations to Oriental Fire (i.e., restricting Section 110 claims to owner, driver or insurer and indicating Civil Court as forum for strangers).	The court noted that similar observations were made in this case and treated it as corroborative authority for the view that claims against strangers fall outside the Claims Tribunal's jurisdiction under the Act.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by identifying the statutory scheme created by Sections 110 to 110-F (substituted into the Act with effect from 16-2-1957). It noted that before these provisions, claims arising out of motor accidents were ordinary civil suits, and that the insertion of these sections was intended to provide a cheap and speedy remedy against the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle involved, and to relieve heirs of court-fees.

The court analyzed the language and purpose of Section 110 (constitution and jurisdiction of Claims Tribunals), Section 110-E (requiring the Tribunal, on receipt of an application under Section 110-A, to hold an inquiry and make an award specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid and which amount shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver), and Section 110-B (which the court treated as limiting the Tribunal's power to specify payment by insurer/owner/driver).

From this statutory framework the court drew these points:

The Act provides a special remedy for injury or damage arising out of the use of motor vehicles, and the Tribunal's adjudicatory scope is directed to those having a connection with the motor vehicle involved.
The Tribunal's power to specify payment by insurer/owner/driver (Section 110-E read with Section 110-B) indicates that the Act's remedial machinery is restricted to these categories; it does not provide for claiming compensation against every person who may have been negligent.
Where a party against whom compensation is claimed has no connection with the motor vehicle involved, that party cannot be made liable under the Act; in such circumstances the proper forum is the Civil Court. The court illustrated this reasoning with the example (given in the opinion) that an injured person could not claim before a Claims Tribunal against the owner of a tree that caused an accident merely because the accident arose in the course of using a motor vehicle.
The appellant's particular case involved injuries resulting from his own scooter falling into a pit; the Municipal Corporation and contractors had no connection with the appellant's scooter (they were strangers to the motor vehicle). Thus, the claim against them did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle by those respondents within the meaning of Section 110 and related provisions.
Regarding the appellant's contention that Section 110-F barred Civil Court jurisdiction, the court relied on precedent (Oriental Fire and Swarnalata) and concluded that Section 110-F does not bar Civil Court jurisdiction in respect of claims against strangers to the motor vehicle; Section 110-F bars Civil Court jurisdiction only in matters where Claims Tribunals have jurisdiction under the Act.

Applying these principles, the court concluded that the Claims Tribunal was correct to hold that the petition against the Municipal Corporation and other respondents (strangers to the scooter) was not maintainable under Section 110 read with Section 110-B, and that the remedy, if any, lies before the Civil Court.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court DISMISSED the appeal and affirmed the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's decision that the claim petition against the Municipal Corporation and other respondents (strangers to the motor vehicle) was not maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Direct implications for the parties:

The appellant's claim against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, its contractor and the Water Supply & Sewerage Disposal Undertaking cannot be entertained by the Claims Tribunal under Sections 110 to 110-E/110-B of the Act because those respondents had no connection with the appellant's scooter; the Tribunal correctly dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction.
The appellant's available remedy, insofar as it pertains to alleged negligence of the Corporation/contractors in maintaining the road, lies in a Civil Court (ordinary civil jurisdiction), not before the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act.
The court expressly recorded that Section 110-F does not bar a Civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain claims against persons who are not within the categories (owner, driver, insurer) over which the Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction.
No order as to costs was made by the appellate court (consistent with the Tribunal's judgment being affirmed).

Broader precedent: The court relied on previously decided authorities (cited above) that construe Sections 110–110F as restricting Tribunal jurisdiction to owner/driver/insurer; the opinion applies that established principle to the facts and does not purport to expand or depart from those authorities.

Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Show full summary ...

Madan Lal Jain v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi, And Others

This appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) challenges the judgement and order dated 16-7-1981 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi dismissing the claim petition of the appellant on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award compensation against persons other than those mentioned in S. 110-B of the Act. The appellant Madan Lal Jain filed a petition under S. 110-A of the Act claiming Rs. 25,000/- as damages against the respondents, namely. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Contractor of the Corporation and the Water Supply and Sewerage Disposal Undertaking, alleging that on 24-7-1979 he was driving two-wheeler scooter on ring road with front headlight on between 10 and 11 P.M, that the front wheel of the scooter fell in a pit on the road and the scooter overturned as a result of which he fell down and received grievous injuries, that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the employees of Municipal Corporation of Delhi and of the contractors engaged by the Corporation in digging the pit and not putting the warning or indication at the pit, that respondents owed a duty towards him in providing safe road and they failed in their duty by not putting up any redlight sign or any other sign at the place to warn the users of the road. It has been further alleged by him that his helmet was broken and scooter was damaged, that he spent Rs. 100/- on repairs of scooter, and the cost of helmet was Rs. 100/-, that he remained under plaster for about two months and the treatment is still continuing, that he cannot bend his right leg nor can sit or squat, that he could not look after his business and his business suffered. He thus claimed Rupees 25,000/- as compensation. His scooter No. DHP 9148 is insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petition against them was not maintainable. The Tribunal by the impugned judgement held that the petition was not maintainable as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award compensation against persons other than insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. Hence this first appeal.

2. The question for decision in this appeal is : what is the extent of jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under S. 110 of the Act? Sections 110 to 110F were substituted in the Act by 100 of 1956 with effect from 16-2-1957. Previously all claims for compensation arising out of motor accident were treated as ordinary civil suits to be adjudicated by Civil Courts. By insertion of the said sections in the Act a cheap remedy was provided to the person who sustained injury and to his legal heirs. The intention was to save the heirs from payment of court-fees on claims and to have a speedy remedy against the driver, the owner and the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. Sections 110 and 110B of the Act read as under:

“110. (1) A State Government 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, 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 property 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.

(2) A Claim Tribunal shall consist of such number of members as the State Government may think fit to appoint and where it consists of two or more members, one of them shall be appointed as the Chairman thereof.

(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a member of a Claims Tribunal unless he—

(a) is, or has been, a judge of a High Court, or

(b) is, or has been a District Judge, or

(4) Where two or more Claims Tribunals are constituted for any area, the State Government may, by general or special order, regulate the distribution of business among them.”

“110-E. On receipt of an application for compensation made under S. 110-A, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, hold an inquiry into the claim and may make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be paid; and in making the award the Claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of them, as the case may be.”

Under the former section the State Government by notification, is authorised to constitute one or more Tribunals for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents arising out of the use of motor vehicles. Under the latter section the Tribunal is required to specify the amount of compensation payable by the driver, the owner and the insurer when there is an accident and injury is caused to the person or property of the victim. The injured person may claim compensation against any person who may be held negligent. Under the Act, however a special provision has been made to claim compensation on account of death or bodily injury to the person caused by the use of motor vehicle. It also provides for recovery of damages to any property of a third person on account of the accident by a motor vehicle. Under S. 110-A of the Act such an application for compensation can be filed by a person who has sustained injuries, by the owner of the property or by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. The Act provides that the Tribunal shall hold an enquiry into the claim and make an award determining the amount of compensation and specifying the persons to whom the compensation shall be paid. Further S. 110-B provides that the Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. In other words the scope of adjudication by the Tribunal is restricted against the driver, owner or insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. The Act does not provide for claiming compensation against each and every person who may be negligent and responsible for the damage caused to a person or his property. A person against whom the compensation is claimed must be a person or authority having connection with the motor vehicle involved in the accident. The compensation is claimed under the Act on account of the use of the motor vehicle by the opposite party. If the opposite party had no connection with the vehicle involved in the accident he cannot be made liable under the Act. In the instant case the appellant was driving his two-wheeler scooter, his front wheel of the scooter fell into a pit on account of which the scooter overturned and he received injuries. This may be a case of negligence on the part of the Corporation authorities in not properly maintaining the roads, but if has not arisen on account of the use of motor vehicle. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi has no connection with the scooter of the appellant. The respondents are not involved in any motor vehicle accident and as such the claim against them cannot be entertained by a Claims Tribunal under the Act. The remedy if any against the respondents on account of their negligence in properly maintaining the roads lies only before the Civil Court and not before the Tribunal. Under S. 110 of the Act claim for compensation arises when there is injury or damage to the property arising out of the use of motor vehicle. This motor vehicle must be connected in one way or the other to the party against whom the compensation is being claimed. In the instant case the appellant himself is the owner driver of the scooter. The respondents have no connection with his scooter. It therefore cannot be said that injury to the person or property of the appellant has arisen out of the use of the motor vehicle within the meaning of S. 110 of the Act. The respondent is neither a driver nor owner of any vehicle in the instant case. The intention of the legislature was not to include claims for compensation against all persons. The claims for compensation are restricted to the category of persons mentioned in S. 110B of the Act, i.e the driver, owner or the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. These sections occur in the chapter dealing with insurance of motor vehicles against third party risk. The object behind these sections is only to provide for a speedy and effective machinery to persons injured in accident. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that S. 110 postulates enquiry of all claims arising out of any accident of the motor vehicle. To accept the contention of the learned counsel that it would include claims against all persons, would lead to consequences which were never contemplated by the legislature in amending and substituting Ss. 110 to 110-F of the Act. A person proceeding on a motor vehicle may be injured by an accident resulting from a fall of a tree. It cannot be said that the injured person can lay a claim before the Claims Tribunal under the Act, against the owner of the tree, if it was due to the negligence of such owner that such accident occurred. I do not think that the provisions of the Act were intended to enable a person injured to make a claim against any party simply because the accident arose out of the use of motor vehicle. In my view the claims referred in S. 110 of the Act are applicable only to cases of claims against the insurer, driver, or owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The proper forum for adjudicating a claim against the strangers is Civil Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant then submits that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under S. 110-F of the Act. The claim of the appellant against respondents who were strangers to the accident would be maintainable in the Civil Court and is not barred under S. 110-F of the Act. This section bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any claim for compensation over which the Claims Tribunals have jurisdiction. As already stated the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal to award compensation is restricted against the driver owner or the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident as mentioned in S. 110-B of the Act. In Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1975 Andh Pra 222 it has been held that the claims referred to in S. 110 are applicable only to cases of claims against the owner, the driver of the motor vehicle or the insurer as the case may be and not against strangers. It has further been held that proper forum for adjudicating a claim against strangers is a Civil Court and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such a case is not barred by S. 110-F of the Act for adjudicating claims against strangers. Similar observations are made in Swarnalata Dutta Barua v. National Transport India Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1974 Gauhati 31. I am therefore of the view that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the claim petition against the respondents who are strangers to the alleged accident was not maintainable under Section 110 read with S. 110-B of the Act. There is no infirmity in the judgement of the Tribunal. The appeal is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.

Madan Lal Jain v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi, And Others

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Madan Lal Jain v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi, And Others

Comments