R.N. Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, dated December 15, 1975, by the claimant.
(2.) THE Petitioner filed an application under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act for the award of compensation in respect of damages caused to his car No. CH 403, in an accident. The Respondents contested the petition and took a preliminary objection that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to award compensation in respect of damages to the property. The learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that the District Judge, Chandigarh, had been constituted Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal only for adjudicating upon the claims of compensation in respect of death and bodily injury and not in respect of claims for damages to the property. Consequently it dismissed the petition. The claimant has come up in appeal against the said order of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, to this Court. The only point raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that a notification had been issued in the Chandigarh Administration Gazette, dated February 16, 1974, by which the earlier notification were superseded and the District Judge, Chandigarh, was appointed as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for the Union Territory of Chandigarh, for the purpose of adjudicating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, or damage to any property of a third party so arising or both. He says that the aforesaid notification could not be brought to the notice of the Additional Accidents Claims Tribunal, and consequently, the case could not be decided correctly.
(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The notification dated February 16, 1974, authorises the District Judge, Chandigarh, to act as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, to adjudicate upon claims for compensation on account of damages to any properly of a third party, arising out of an accident. The aforesaid notification is as follows: No. 2/5/28 -73 -3H(S)/32l5. - In supersession of Chandigarh Administration, Home Department, Notification No. 21/CA/66/ Home, dated the 20th November 1966, and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended, the Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh, is pleased to appoint the District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for the Union Territory of Chandigarh 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, or damage to any property of a third party so arising or both. It is an admitted case of the Appellant that the notification was not produced before the trial Court. The notification clearly lays down that the District Judge, Chandigarh is to act as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and can adjudicate upon claims for compensation on account of damages to property of a third party, suffered by him on account of accident. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the finding of the learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is erroneous and its judgment is liable to be set aside. The counsel for the Respondents wanted to raise another preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction which we did not allow him to raise in this Court. The Respondents can, if so advised, take the objection in the trial Court if the same has been raised in the pleadings.;