G.G. Sohani, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 13th February 1973 passed by the Civil Judge, Second Class, Bhanpura, in Cod, No. 162 B of 1971.
(2.) THE petition arises out of a suit instituted by opponent No. 1 Shivsingh against the applicant and opponent No. 2 claiming damages amounting to Rs. 1,275. The Plaintiff's case was that Defendant No. 2, the driver of a passenger bus owned by the applicant, was driving the bus rashly and negligently on 4th June 1971 and caused an accident killing a buffalo and injuring another, belonging to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff contended that as a result of the accident so, caused, the Plaintiff suffered damages amounting to Rs. 1,275. On behalf of the Defendants, the suit was resisted inter -alia on the ground that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The objection was overruled by the learned trial Judge by his impugned order. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant has preferred this revision petition. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that this revision petition must be allowed. Under Section 110 F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the Act, where any Claims Tribunal for any area has been constituted, no civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area. It is not disputed that under Section 110 of the Act, the Claims Tribunal has been constituted for the area in which the cause of action has arisen. It is also not disputed that the Claims Tribunal so constituted has jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation in respect of damages to any property of a third party arising out of the accident. It is not disputed that the claim for compensation is below Rs. 2,000/ -. Under these circumstances, the Claims Tribunal, constituted under Section 110 of the Act, alone has jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiff's claim for compensation on account of injury to his property, i.e. the buffaloes.
(3.) MR . Garg, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff -opponent, contended that under Section 110A of the Act, which deals with applications for compensation, there is no provision for an application by a person whose claim is based on damages to property. There is no substance in this contention. Clause (a) of Section 110A of the Act clearly provides that an application may be made under Section 110A by a person who has sustained the injury. The word 'injury', in the context of the provisions of Section 110 of the Act, as amended by Act No. 56 of 1969, would also include injury to the property of a person. Mr. Garg placed reliance on the decision reported in B.S. Nat v. Bachan Singh : 1971 A.C.J. 37. In that case, however, the meaning of the term 'injury', in the context of unlamented provisions of Section 110 of the Act, was considered. The case, therefore, is clearly distinguishable and is no authority for the proposition that inspite of amendment made in Section 110 of the Act by Act No. 56 of 1969, the word 'injury' should be given a restricted meaning.;