Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THESE ap peals and revisions raise common ques tions and can be disposed of together.
(2.) A truck bearing number USL 8010 belonging to the defendants-respon dents was involved in an accident on 9th June, 1966. Arun Gupta and Rajvardhan Gupta, sons of Devendra Kumar, received injuries at the accident. Later, Arun Gupta died. His father Devendra Kumar, on 24th May, 1967, instituted a suit the Court of the Civil Judge Meerut, for recovery of compensation from the defendants- respondents for damages suffered by him as a result of his son Arun Gupta's death. The same day, Rajvardhan Gupta filed another suit in the same Court for compensa tion for the injuries sustained by him. Both the suits were accompanied by ap plications for leave to sue in forma paupers. Both cases were heard together and disposed of by the learned Civil Judge, Meerut, by a common judgment. It appears that by a notifica tion dated 22nd April, 1967, the State Government constituted a Motor Acci dents Claims Tribunal for the district of Meerut under Section 110, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Section 110-F, Motor Vehicles Act, debarred the Civil Courts from entertaining any claim for com pensation which may be adjudicated up on by the Claims Tribunal. The defendants raised a preliminary objection that the suits as well as the applications for permission to sue in forma pauperism were not maintainable because the Civil Courts were debarred from entertaining claims for compensation instituted after the establishment of the Claims Tribu nal. The learned Civil Judge, Meerut, upheld this objection and rejected the applications and the suits. The two revisions are directed against these orders.
(3.) THEREAFTER , on 12th February, 1958, the two plaintiffs filed applications for compensation before the Claims Tri bunal. The defendants-respondents con tested the applications. They pleaded that since the accident took place prior to the constitution of the Tribunal, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to enter tain the claim for compensation. In support, reliance was placed upon a single Judge decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Shanti Misra, 1970 ACJ 24 = AIR 1970 All 408. In this case it was held that the Civil Court and not the Claims Tribu nal, had jurisdiction to entertain claims for compensation in respect of accidents which occurred prior to the constitu tion of the Claims Tribunal. In view of this decision, the Tribunal upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the claim petitions. The two appeals are directed against orders dismissing the two claim petitions.;