RANGANATHAR TRANSPORTS P LTD Vs. TANJORE CO OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this civil revision petition, and interesting point has been raised with reference to the jurisdiction of a civil Court regarding the claim made in a suit filed by the respondent herein for damages that had been caused to the headlight assembly and the bulb, which came to Rs. 159.86, damage to the mudguard, which was repaired and repainted, which came to Rs. 85 and compensation towards the loss of income from the vehicle, namely, the lorry which got damaged, in that it was kept idle for two days, in a sum of Rs. 300 calculating at the rate of Rs. 150/- per day. It is interesting to note that the occurrence of the accident claimed had taken place at Vijayapuram Bazaar, Tiruvarur and the vehicles that collided were a transport bus belonging to the defendant, Sri Renganathar Transports Private Limited, Thanjavur represented by its partner and the lorry MDO 6252, which was owned by the plaintiff, the Tanjore Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, Tiruvarur by its Secretary. The occurrence wherein these two vehicles collided took place at 3.45 p.m. on 25th June, 1976. According to the plaintiff, the lorry owned by it was proceeding after filling up diesel in the Indian Oil Petrol Bunk at Vijayapuram, and, while it was coming towards west and was also turning to the right in order to return to the plaintiff society building, which is situated on the east of the petrol bunk on the opposite row, on seeing the defendant-s bus approaching at high speed from the west, it was stopped. The defendant is a private limited bus company and is plying between Thanjavur and Nagoor and the defendant-s bus was a vehicle bearing registration No. MDO 7331. At that time, it was proceeding from west to east in the Tanjore Road and was being driven by the defendant-s driver in the usual course of his business while in the employment of the defendant. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant-s bus, which was approaching at high speed, instead of stopping in order to avoid a collision, came and dashed against the plaintiff-s lorry. It is alleged in the plaint that the negligent act of the defendant was responsible for the collision. In other words, it was because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus owned by the defendant that the head light, mudguard etc., of the plaintiff-s lorry got damaged. In addition to the compensation claimed in this suit towards damages that were actually caused to the body of the lorry, the claim of Rs. 300, was also made by the plaintiff, in that the lorry had to be kept without being actually put to use by the plaintiff - The Tanjore Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited for transporting commodities dealt with by it, claiming the same as the amount that would have been actually earned by putting the said lorry on the road, at the rate of Rs. 150 per day. Thus, the total claim comes to Rs. 544.85.

(2.) THE learned District Munsif who took the suit on file held that the civil Court has got no jurisdiction, because section 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court in that any claim made with respect to any collision that takes place between two vehicles or damage to any extent as a matter of fact, may be made only by way of application under section 110 of that enactment as amended by section 57 of Act LVI of 1969, which came into effect from 2nd March, 1970. As a matter of fact, the very same contention is now raised by the learned counsel for the civil revision petitioner, because the lower appellate Court had reversed the judgment of the trial Court, holding that the civil Court has got jurisdiction because it is only compensation claimed for not having facilitated use of the lorry that got damaged in the accident and as such the said claim has nothing to do with the claim contemplated under the provision of section 110 of the Act. It may be noted that the lower appellate Court has confirmed the dismissal of the suit with regard to the claim of Rs.244.85 and set aside the dismissal with regard to the claim of Rs. 300 as compensation for loss of two days, income and remanded the suit for fresh disposal regarding the claim of Rs. 300.

(3.) REFERRING to the provisions of the above section, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner also refers to the decisions in Union of India v. Labh Ghana6and State of M.P. v. Pehliairai The learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that merely on the ground that a sum of Rs. 300 is claimed towards compensation as a loss of income in that the lorry had been kept by the plaintiff without being utilised for the transport of the commodities dealt with by the plaintiff Co-operative Society, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of a civil Court can be exercised by entertaining the suit with respect to that claim, as held by the lower appellate Court, because section 110-F is certainly a bar to such kind of entertainment of claim by way of suit, especially when it is in clear terms provided that any claim made with respect to any aggrieved person regarding the vehicle or in respect of the injury sustained by him can be only by an application and not by way of any suit. Anyhow, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that, subsequent to the amendment by Act LVI of 1969, there cannot be any jurisdiction entertained by any civil Court with respect to a claim of this nature, and that is barred, and that the lower appellate Court is wrong in having held that the trial Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the claim. In this regard, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner also points out that with respect to the two claims namely, with respect to dents and damage caused to the head-light of the lorry, are concerned, they are exclusively and ipso facto damages to the vehicle and as such should be made and must be made mandatorily only under section 110 and that so far as the claim regarding two days non-facilitating of the vehicle in that the vehicle was kept without being actually put on the road for the purpose of the owner-s use, the said claim can certainly also came under the interpretation of the phrase "any claim- occurring in section 110-F. I am of opinion that this contention has to be upheld is that any claim also includes claims with respect to the vehicle not being facilitated and that, under the circumstances the suit is not maintainable.