- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sheela Kaur v. Union Of India And Another
Structured Summary of the Opinion: Transfer of Claims Proceedings under the Fatal Accidents Act / Motor Vehicles Act
Factual and Procedural Background
A claim for Rs. 10,000 was filed on 8 August 1967 in the Court of the District Judge, Jammu (suit filed in forma pauperis) for damages arising from the death of Charan Singh, who was knocked down by an Airforce vehicle and died on 21 October 1966. The suit was tried by the District Judge and transferred to the Additional District Judge, Jammu on 11 February 1972. The Additional District Judge heard arguments on 11 February 1972 and reserved judgment for 24 February 1972. Although no formal transfer order to the Accidents Claims Tribunal was on file, an order of the Tribunal dated 13 March 1972 indicates the case was transferred to the Tribunal sometime before judgment could be delivered by the Additional District Judge.
The present application seeks transfer of the claim proceedings (i.e., return from the Claims Tribunal to the civil court). The petitioner contends that the Claims Tribunal lacks jurisdiction because the suit was already filed in a civil court and the accident occurred before the Tribunal's constitution; accordingly, the petitioner seeks restoration of the case to the Additional District Judge, Jammu.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Claims Tribunal, after its constitution, can try claims arising out of accidents that occurred before the Tribunal's constitution.
- Whether a suit filed in a civil court with respect to an accident that took place before the constitution of the Claims Tribunal can be transferred to the Claims Tribunal.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the suit because the suit was already instituted in a civil court (District Judge / Additional District Judge) before the Tribunal was constituted.
- The accident occurred before the constitution of the Claims Tribunal; therefore the Claims Tribunal cannot entertain the claim and the case should be transferred back to the Additional District Judge, Jammu.
The opinion does not set out detailed arguments from any opposing party in the record; the only additional factual point recorded is counsel's statement that the case had been transferred to the Claims Tribunal by an order of this court.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Palani Ammal v. Safe Service Ltd., 1966 A.C.J. 19 (Madras High Court) | Section 110-F was not intended to be retrospective; it does not affect suits entertained by civil courts before constitution of the Tribunal. | Quoted for the proposition that s.110-F bars civil court jurisdiction only prospectively and that the Tribunal's prior existence is contemplated by time-limit provisions in s.110-A(3). |
| Manibai Lallu Kika Rathod v. Rajkumar Harpal Deo, 1966 A.C.J. 107 | Authority supporting the non-retrospective construction of section 110-F and the absence of a statutory provision to transfer pending civil actions to the Claims Tribunal. | Relied on to establish that if a civil court had entertained a proceeding before constitution of the Tribunal, there is nothing in the Motor Vehicles Act to oust that civil court's jurisdiction thereafter. |
| Domingo Cardoza v. Ramraia Dattarama Naique, 1968 A.C.J. 239 (R.S. Bindra) | Similar authority holding that s.110-F does not affect continuation of proceedings commenced prior to constitution of the Tribunal. | Used to reinforce the view that civil courts retain jurisdiction over proceedings begun before the Tribunal was set up. |
| Bulidan Singh v. Pital Emmenual, 1970 A.C.J. 51 (Rajasthan High Court) | Expressed the view that s.110-F is not retrospective and does not affect suits already entertained by civil courts. | Relied upon to support the conclusion that the initial transfer of the matter to the Claims Tribunal was incorrect. |
| Sushma Mehta v. C.P.T. Services Ltd., A.I.R. 1964 Madhya Pra. 133 (Division Bench, Madhya Pradesh High Court) | Held that s.110-F (introduced by amendment) does not affect the right to file or continue a suit in respect of a cause of action that accrued before constitution of the Accidents Claims Tribunal; the Tribunal has no concurrent jurisdiction for such claims. | Applied to conclude that the civil court (Additional District Judge) retained jurisdiction to continue the suit and the Tribunal could not try claims arising before its constitution. |
| Satish Chandra v. State of U.P., 1971 A.C.J. 180 (Allahabad High Court) | Addresses the limits of the High Court's powers: when the High Court acts as an appellate body under s.110-D, it does not have revisionary jurisdiction under s.115; s.110-A(3) makes the Civil Procedure Code applicable only to a restricted extent, and does not confer revisionary power. | Invoked to analyze the availability of High Court powers and to show that the High Court's supervisory powers under Article 227 (and corresponding state provisions) provide a remedy where revision does not lie; used to justify supervisory intervention in Tribunal matters. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by identifying the relevant statutory framework under the Motor Vehicles Act: Tribunals are constituted for adjudicating compensation claims (sections cited include 110-A, 110-C and, most importantly, 110-F). Section 110-F states that once a Claims Tribunal is constituted for any area, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated by the Tribunal for that area.
The court analysed whether section 110-F operates retrospectively. It concluded, following a plain reading and several earlier authorities, that section 110-F was not intended to be retrospective in operation. Therefore, civil actions that were already pending in civil courts before the constitution of a Claims Tribunal continue to be within civil court jurisdiction; the civil court does not cease to function with regard to those pending cases.
The court cited multiple precedents supporting this non-retrospective construction (Palani Ammal; Manibai Lallu Kika Rathod; Domingo Cardoza; Bulidan Singh; Sushma Mehta) and treated them as confirming the legislative intent that the bar in s.110-F applies only to matters not already entertained by civil courts before the Tribunal's constitution. The court expressly observed that the Motor Vehicles Act contains no provision for the transfer of pending civil actions to the Claims Tribunal.
On the procedural question whether this court could withdraw the matter from the Claims Tribunal, the court examined the powers of the High Court under the Act. Section 110-D makes the High Court the court of appeal from Tribunal awards above Rs. 2,000; consequently, when the High Court exercises appellate jurisdiction it does not (ipso facto) get revisionary jurisdiction under section 115. Section 110-A(3) limits the application of the Civil Procedure Code and does not confer revisionary power upon the High Court.
However, the court turned to supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution (corresponding to section 104 of the State Constitution). The opinion noted precedents in which supervisory powers under Article 227 were used to set aside Tribunal orders or to achieve relief where revision did not lie (reference to the Allahabad High Court decision and Palani Ammal). The court concluded that the supervisory jurisdiction (Article 227 / corresponding section 104) could be used to recall an incorrect transfer and restore the status quo ante.
The court also recorded that, according to counsel, the transfer to the Claims Tribunal had been effected by an order of this court; therefore the order effecting the transfer could be recalled by the court and the case withdrawn so as to restore the proceedings to the state they were in before the transfer.
Applying these legal principles to the facts, the court held that the suit was wrongly transferred to the Claims Tribunal because the cause of action arose and proceedings were instituted prior to the constitution of the Tribunal; there is no statutory basis to transfer pending civil suits to the Tribunal; and the High Court (or the court which made the transfer order) can recall its own incorrect transfer order and withdraw the case from the Tribunal under its supervisory powers.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The court held that the suit was wrongly transferred to the Claims Tribunal and accordingly the case is withdrawn from the Claims Tribunal and returned to the Additional District Judge, Jammu, to be disposed of by that court from the stage at which it was transferred.
Implications: The direct consequence is that the Additional District Judge, Jammu, will proceed with and dispose of the suit from the stage at which it was transferred to the Claims Tribunal. The opinion grounds this outcome in the non-retrospective construction of section 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act and the absence of any statutory provision to transfer pending civil suits to the Claims Tribunal. The opinion does not articulate any broader or novel precedent beyond applying established authorities and confirming the availability of supervisory relief (Article 227 / corresponding state provision) to recall an incorrect transfer; under the specific facts the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
1. This is an application for transfer of claims proceedings under the Fatal Accidents Act, pending before the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu. In this case a claim for the recovery of Rs. 10,000 as damages was filed in the court of District Judge Jammu, on 8-8-1967. This suit was filed in forma pauperis and was heard by that court. The claim was with regard to the death of one, Charan Singh who was knocked down by an Airforce vehicle on 21st of October, 1966. The said Charan Singh died on the spot and his heirs filed the present suit. The suit was tried by the District Judge and it was transferred to the court of the Additional District Judge, Jammu, on 11-2-1972. The Additional District Judge heard the arguments on 11-2-1972 and reserved judgment for 24-2-1972. Although no order is on the file transferring these proceedings to the Accidents Claims Tribunal but from the order of the Tribunal dated 13-3-1972 it appears that the case was transferred to the said Tribunal sometime before the judgment could be delivered by the Additional District Judge.
2. The present application for transfer has been made by the petitioner on the ground that the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the suits which had already been filed in the civil courts and the accident had taken place before the constitution of the Tribunal. As the Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the said suit so the petitioner wanted it to be transferred back to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Jammu.
3. The first point which falls for consideration in this case is whether the Claims Tribunal after its constitution can try the claims with regard to the accident which had taken place before its constitution.
4. Secondly, whether a suit, filed with regard to an accident having taken place before the constitution of the Tribunal, could be transferred to the Claims Tribunal.
5. In order to appreciate these points it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals are constituted by a notification of the State Government for such areas as may be specified therein and these Tribunals are constituted for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injuries to persons arising out of the use of motor Vehicles or damages to any property of a third party so arising. Section 110-A provides for making of the application. It deals with the persons who can make the application to the tribunal where it can be made and the limitation for the same. Section 110-C gives the procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal. According to clause 2 of this section the Claims Tribunal has been given the power of a civil Court for certain specified purpose. Then the most relevant provisions for the purpose of this case is section 110-F which reads as under:—
“Where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, no civil Court Page: 463shall 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.”
6. According to this section whenever a Claims Tribunal is constituted for any area the civil court ceases to have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area. This clearly shows that the jurisdiction of the civil courts gets barred to entertain the claims which could be filed before the Claims Tribunal. This section is not retrospective in its operation. As such civil actions which are already pending before a civil court can be continued to be tried by a civil court. The civil court does not cease to function with regard to those cases. On this point the following authorities can be cited with benefit:—
7. Bulidan Singh v. Pital Emmenual 1970 A.C.J 51; Domingo Cardoza v. Ramraia Dattar ama Naique 1968 A.C.J 239; Palani Ammal v. Safe Service Ltd. 1966 A.C.J 19; Manibai Lallu Kika Rathod v. Rajkumar Harpal Deo* 1966 A.C.J 107.
8. In 1966 A.C.J 19 (Supra) S. Ramachandra Iyer, Chief Justice while delivering the judgment of the Madras High Court observed:—
“A plain reading of the section referred to above, makes two things clear (i) that section 110-F which takes away the jurisdiction of the civil Court was not intended to be retrospective so as to affect the jurisdiction of the civil Court in respect of suits or actions which it had entertained before the constitution of the Tribunal under section 110(1) and (ii) sub-clause (3) of section 110-A which provides for a time limit for the filing of application for compensation as well as the condoning of the delay in the presentation of such an application, postulates the previous existence of the Tribunal.
9. Therefore, the intention of the Legislature must have been that the bar of the jurisdiction of the civil Court enacted in section 110-F must only be in regard to matters in respect of which claims had not been entertained by the civil Court before the constitution of the Tribunal. The terms of that section which provide that no civil Court shall entertain any question therefore mean that it cannot, after the constitution of the Tribunal under the Act take cognizance of a suit or other proceeding in respect of such claims. If before the constitution of the Tribunal the Civil Court had entertained a suit or proceeding such claim, there is nothing in the Motor Vehicles Act to take away its jurisdiction. As Jagadisan, J. has pointed out, there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act for transfer of pending actions to the Claims Tribunal.”
10. A similar view was expressed by Patel, J. who wrote the judgment for the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in 1966 A.C.J 107 and held as under:—
“It is true that once a Claims Tribunal is constituted under section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Civil Courts jurisdiction is excluded, irrespective of whether the accident took place before the constitution of the Tribunal or after it, but the provisions of section 110-F do not affect the continuance of proceeding commenced in the civil court prior to the constitution of the Tribunal. The said provisions are not retrospective.”
11. To the same effect is 1968 A.C.J 239 (Supra) which is the judgment of R.S Bindra Judicial Commissioner Goa, Daman and Diu.
12. The Rajasthan High Court in 1970 A.C.J 51 has also expressed the similar view.
13. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sushma Mehta v. C.P.T Services Ltd. A.I.R 1964 Madhya Pra. 133 has also taken the similar view and has held as under:—
“section 110-F 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. A civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation instituted after constitution of the tribunal in respect of an accident occurring before its constitution. The tribunal has no concurrent jurisdiction to entertain claims for compensation in respect of injuries caused before the constitution of the tribunal.”
14. From the above discussion it is clear that the civil court of Additional District Judge did not cease to have jurisdiction to continue the hearing of this suit and in turn there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act to transfer the pending actions before the civil court to the Claims Tribunal. As such the initial transfer of this case to the Claims Tribunal was wrong. Therefore this case cannot be tried by the Claims Tribunal and should be tried by the Additional District Judge, Jammu.
15. The next point which requires consideration is whether this court has powers to withdraw this case from the Claims Tribunal.
16. In order to find out whether such a power exists in the court we will have to consider the powers given to the High Court under the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court has been made the Court of Appeal according to section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act and all appeals from the awards of the Claims Tribunal which are above Rs. 2000/- lie to the High Courts. When the High Court has the appellate powers and acts as such ipso facto it does not get the revisionary jurisdiction under section 115. It will further be clear that according to section 110-A(3) the Civil Procedure Code has been made applicable to a restricted extent which does not give the revisionary power to the High Court. This is also the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Satish Chandra v. State of U.P 1971 A.C.J 180. But that is not the end of the matter. The High Court has the powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India corresponding to section 104 of our State Constitution. These supervisory powers were used by the Allahabad High Court in the above quoted decision A.I.R 1964 Madhya Pra. 133. Although it held that no revision lay but the revision petition was allowed to be converted into a petition under Article 226 and 227 and the impugned order was set aside. Similarly in Palani Ammal v. Safe Service Ltd. 1966 A.C.J 19 (Supra) the revisional powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India were used and the petitions were allowed. So the action can be taken under the said Article or the corresponding section 104 of our Constitution.
17. Apart from this aspect, this case has been transferred to the Claims Tribunal by order of this court as I am told by the counsel for the parties, so the order transferring the case to the Claims Tribunal which was not correct can be recalled by the court and the case can be withdrawn to restore status quo ante. For the foregoing reasons I hold that the suit was wrongly transferred to the Claims Tribunal which is withdrawn back from it. The case will go back to the Additional District Judge, Jammu, for disposal of the same. He will proceed with the suit from the stage it was transferred to the Claims Tribunal.
18. Under the special circumstances of this case I leave the parties to bear their own costs.
Alert