KHATUMAL GHANSHAMDAS Vs. ABDUL QADIR JAMALUDDIN
LAWS(MPH)-1961-1-6
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on January 25,1961

KHATUMAL GHANSHAMDAS Appellant
VERSUS
ABDUL QADIR JAMALUDDIN Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

MOON V. DURDEN [REFERRED TO]
SMITHIES V. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF OPERATIVE PLASTERERS [REFERRED TO]
BEADLING V. GOLL [REFERRED TO]
HENSHALL V. PORTER [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. MOHAN LAL SHASTRI [LAWS(DLH)-1973-5-28] [REFERRED 5.]
NATVERLAL BHIKHALAL SHAH VS. THAKARDA KHODAJI KALAJI [LAWS(GJH)-1966-3-7] [REFERRED]
KUMARI SUSHMA MEHTA VS. CENTRAL PROVINCES TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD [LAWS(MPH)-1962-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
GOKULDAS PAGARIA VS. PARMANAND CHAURASIA [LAWS(MPH)-1967-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
HIRALAL THAKURDAS CHOWKSE VS. HATESINGH LAXMANSINGH [LAWS(MPH)-1980-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
MANIBAI VS. RAJ KUMAR HARPAL DEO [LAWS(BOM)-1965-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
M K KUNHIRAMAN VS. PURAMERI SERVICE CO OP BANK LTD [LAWS(KER)-1970-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
YADAV MOTOR TRANSPORT CO VS. JAGDISH PRASAD BHIMGANI WARD KOTA [LAWS(RAJ)-1969-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
BULIDAN SINGH VS. VICTOR EMMANUAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1969-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN MOHAN VS. GEETA PATEL [LAWS(MPH)-2011-12-67] [REFERRED TO]
PRITHVI NATH KAUL VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [LAWS(J&K)-1979-7-10] [REFERRED TO]
HAJI A. ABDUL RASHID VS. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A. GENERAL) [LAWS(KER)-2016-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI MISRA AND OTHERS VS. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1971-8-44] [REFERRED TO]
BULIDAN SINGH VS. PITAR EMMENUAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1969-7-30] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

Dixit, C.J. - (1.)This is an application under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a suitable direction restraining the Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, from adjudicating upon a claim for compensation made by the opponent No. 1 Abdul Qadir in respect of a bodily injury caused to him by a truck owned by the petitioner and driven by the opponent No. 2 Lachhmandas on 24th August 1958.
(2.)The accident occurred on 24th August 1958 in Bhopal. The State Government constituted a tribunal for this area under Section 110 of the Act by the Home Department's Notification dated the 7th August 1959. The Tribunal was not in existence before this date. Before the constitution of the Tribunal, the opponent Abdul Qadir made an application on 20th August 1959 in the Court of the Additional District Judge Bhopal, for being allowed to sue as a pauper for claiming the relief of compensation of Rs. 41,080/- on account of the injury caused to him from the petitioner and the opponent Lachhmandas. During the pendency of an enquiry into his pauperism, Abdul Qadir preferred a claim for compensation before the Tribunal on 10th September 1959. He also applied under the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 110-A for condonation of the delay in filing the application for compensation. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner raised the objections that the claim for compensation being one arising out of an accident occurring before the constitution of the Tribunal could not be entertained by the Tribunal, and that there was no ground for condonation of the delay in the filing of the application for compensation. Both these objections were overruled by the Tribunal,
(3.)The question raised in this petition as to the competency of the Tribunal to entertain Abdul Qadir's claim for compensation turns on Sections 110(1) and 110-F of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 110 empowers the Government to constitute by a notification one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles. Section 110-F is as follows : "Where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, no Civil Court shall 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 betaken by or before the Claims Tribunal in respect of the claim for compensation shall be granted by the Civil Court." It is clear from these provisions, and especially from the opening words of Section 110-F "Where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area", that civil Court's jurisdiction to entertain a claim for compensation on account of a motor vehicle accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, a person is excluded only on the constitution under Section 110 of a Claims Tribunal for the area concerned. There can be no doubt that a claim for compensation in respect of accidents occurring after the constitution of the Tribunal can be entertained by the Tribunal alone. The question here is whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain a claim in respect of an accident taking place before its constitution. This involves the question whether Section 110-F has retrospective operation so as to apply even to a claim for compensation pending in a civil Court.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.