- (1.) This appeal under S. 110-D Motor Vehicles Act, is at the instance of the petitioner-claimant. The petitioner filed a petition under S 110A. Motor Vehicle, Act, for award of compensation of Rs. 8,200 with interest from the date of accident for the damage caused to the shop of the petitioner in a bus accident. The petitioner is the proprietor of cloth shop at Razole. On 31-1-1977, -a bus belonging to A.P.S.R T.C . ran into his shop and destroyed his show-case and furniture. As the bus approached the shop of the petitioner which was in the main road, Razole. it was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent 2 and entered into the - _ petitioners shop. The front portion of the shop was damaged and a tailor received minor injuries. Because of the impact of the bus, show-cases and almirah, lights, a sewing machine, a cycle, a table fan and other articles worth Rs. 3,200 were destroyed. The petitioner suffered shock and he was unable to carry on his business for some time and thereby the business turnover in his shop suffered considerably. The estimate of loss in business is made at Rs 4,000 and for mental shock, the claim of Rs. 1,000 is claimed. Respondent f opposed the claim by stating that the bus was not driven rashly or negligently by respondent 2 driver. but the accident occurred due to a cyclist and another person going on a motorcycle. suddenly crossing the road. The bus was then going at a speed at 15 Km per hour and suddenly a cyclist came in front of the bus carting an other person on the carrier of the cycle. At the same time. another person riding a motor cycle. also carrying one more person on its saddle. came in the opposite direction on the right side. The motor cyclist crossed the road to the other side and so, the driver of the bus had to swerve it to the right side . and as the brakes failed, the accident occurred. The bus did not crash into the shop and no damage was caused to the property. But for the failure of the brakes the accident would not have occurred. The petitioner did not suffer any loss or damage or mental shock and the claim deserves to be rejected. Respondent 2 in a separate counter denied- the allegation of rash and negligent driving. it is also denied that the bus dashed against. the shop and the petitioner or anybody else sustained injuries in the alleged, accident. The issues were framed regarding; the rash and negligent driving by respondent and the quantum of compensation payable. The Court below held that there is no satisfactory and clinching proof of the bus having been driven by respondent 2 rashly and negligently; but some damages appears to have been caused by the dashing of the bus against the shop. In so far as quantum of damages. the court below held that the petitioner is not entitled to award of any compensation in consequence of the accident in question:
(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that admittedly, the bus hit against the shop and in view of the damage caused to the shop, the court below should have awarded damages, as claimed by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent at the outset raised a preliminary objection that this claim for claimant of the property is not maintainable as the accident occurred on 31-1-1977 and claim petition was filed on 11-7-77 prior to the amendment made in S. 110-A. Motor Vehicles Act, by inserting cl. (aa) providing for award of damages to the owner of the property and in any event the petitioner is not entitled to the award of any compensation in the circumstances. To appreciate the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. it is necessary to get at Ss. 110 and 110-A, Motor Vehicles Act, to the extent relevant : "11 Q. Claims Tribunals : (11 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 far 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. 11Q-A . Application for compensation : (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 110 may be made - (a) by the person who has sustained the injury or (aa) by the owner of the property or (b) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal-representatives of the deceased: or (e) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased. as the case may be."
(3.) Section 110 authorizes the State Government to constitute the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals specifying the area of operation for the purpose of adjudicating claims for compensation in respect of all accidents involving death or bodily injury to persons or damages to any property of a third party. Section I10-A. prior to insertion of amendment, by introduction of cl. (aa) with effect from 16-1-1979; conferral right on the person who sustained injury or the legal representatives in the event of death to Claim compensation. The absence of specification of right to claim compensation in respect of damage to property is significant and Conspicuous. The essence of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the expression `injury in unamended S. 110-A is comprehensive enough to take in the damage to the property and the amendment introduced by cl. (aa) by Act 47 of 1998 with effect from 16-1-1979 is satisfactory and should not be considered as a remedy or right conferred for the first time The learned counsel for the respondent contended that there was deliberate omission prior to amendment introduced by cl. (aa) and the expression `injury should be restricted and alienated to bodily injury only. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the decision of Karnataka High Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation . Jyoti Constructions. Mangalore. 1979 Acc CJ 426: (AIR 1979 Kant 79). In this case, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation instituted a claim against the respondent for damages to the bus caused by a truck due to accident. The plea of the respondent was that S. 110-A (l) did not enable a person to prefer an application for damages to the property and the combined reading of Ss. 110 and 110-A indicated that the persons who suffer merely damages to the property are not entitled to apply to the claims Tribunal for compensation. in this context. the expression `injury has been interpreted as. wide enough to cover damages to the property also. The next decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in Haryana state V. Pusa Ram. 1979 Acc CJ 12: (AIR 1978 Punj &Har 171). In this case, the haryana state preferred a claim application before the Tribunal by way of compensation on the allegation that 5 buffaloes of the progency Testing Farm. Hissar. Were killed by rash and negligent driving of truck No. HRH-7467. The claim was resisted by the respondent who raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. On these facts, the punjab and Haryana High Court held that injury in cl. 1 (a) of sec. 110 bears comprehensive ambit and covers damage to the property also. The learned damage to the property also. The learned counsel for the respondent at any outset relied upon the unreported decision of Muktadar J. In A.A.O. 445 of 1979. D/- 8-10-1980. In this case it was contended that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of damage to the property before the amendment which came into force on 26-12-1978. In this case the accident occurred on 18-3-1977. This decision centered round the aspect of retroactivity of the amendment and in view of the committed prospective texture of the amendment retrospective effect cannot be attributed to the amendment but the other dimension whether the expression injury in the unamended proviso takes in its fold the damages to the property also was not considered.;