K.B.Srivastava, J. - (1.) Owing to a difference of opinion between Oak, C. J. and O. P. Trivedi, J. on the question of the competency of a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Claims Tribunal) to entertain claims arising out of motor accidents which had occurred prior to the date of its constitution, the matter has come to me for opinion.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are as follows:- The truck of one Ram Singh collided with the scooter of one Amar Nath Misra on September 11, 1966 resulting in the latter's death. The Claims Tribunal was constituted under Sec. 110, Motor Vehicles Act (herein-after referred to as the Act) on March 18, 1967. The legal representatives of the deceased Amar Nath filed an application for compensation to the Claims Tribunal on July 8, 1967. A preliminary objection was raised by the insurer, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. that the Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction in respect of a claim relating to a motor accident which had occurred anterior to its constitution. The Claims Tribunal overruled the objection on September 11, 1968. Writ Petition No. 2 of 1969 was then instituted for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Claims Tribunal and a Writ of mandamus commanding it not to entertain the application for compensation. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition and issued the two writs. The legal representatives of the deceased Amar Nath then instituted the special appeal. Oak, C. J. took the view that the Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction while O.P. Trivedi, J. agreed with the view of the learned single Judge that it had no jurisdiction over a claim arising out of an accident which had occurred prior to its date of constitution. This is how the matter has come up to me for opinion.
(3.) Voluminous case law was cited at the Bar. Khatumal v. Abdul Qadir, A.I.R. 1961 MP 295 and Mani Bai v. Raj Kumar Harpal Deo, A.I.R. 1967 Bombay 92 lay down the law that a claims Tribunal will have no jurisdiction over suits for compensation arising out of motor accidents already pending before Civil Courts from before the date of its constitution. These two cases, therefore, are not relevant. The view taken in Sushma Mehta v. C.P.T. Services Ltd., A.I.R. 1964 M.P., 133 supports the view of the learned Single Judge and O.P. Trivedi, J. The view taken by the Madras, Delhi, Gurjat, Punjab and Bombay High Court, however, supports the view of the Chief Justice, vide V.C.K. Bus Services v. H.B. Sethna, A.I.R. 1965 Madras 149 ; Thomas v. Messrs. Hotz Hotels Ltd., A.I.R. 1969 Delhi 3 ; Joshi Ratansi Gopaji v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 1968 Accidents Claims Journal 338 ; Zarin v. Santubhai, A.I.R. 1969 Gujarat 233 ; Unique Motor and General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kartar Singh, A.I.R. 1965 Punjab 102 , Abdul Mahomad Aga v. Peter Leo D'mello, A.I.R. 1965 Bombay 21 and Natverla Bhikhalal Sheh v. Thakarda Khodaiji Kalaji, 1967 Accidents Claims Journal 397 .;