UNION OF INDIA (UOI) REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY Vs. P. KAILSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India (UOI) represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras is the Petitioner in the above civil revision petitions. The claimants in O.P. Nos. 14, 16 and 18 of 1971 under the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal are the Respondents herein. They filed the claim against the owner of the bus and the Insurance company for an accident which took place on 10th November 1969 at a level crossing near Karur. The Insurance company was made the 4th, 5th and 4th Respondent in the respective applications. The Respondent -insurance company, in their counter to the claim petitions, contended that they were not liable but it is only the Indian Railways that was negligent inasmuch as the gateman employed at the level crossing was responsible for the accident as he had kept the railway gate wide open for the highway traffic to pass, without any signal of the passing train. After this defence, the claimants filed interlocutory application Nos. 559, 501, and 649 of 1971 respectively, praying that the railways may be made a party to the applications. The railways contested the applications and submitted that they were neither necessary nor proper party and that they should not be added. They also contended that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had no authority to hold the railways liable for payment of damages to the Petitioners. The lower court rejected the plea and directed that the railway be made a party. It is against the decision in the above said three interlocutory applications that the present revision petitions have been filed.

(2.) UNDER Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the State Government is empowered to constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal 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 damages to any property of a third party so arising or both. The proviso to the section states that for claims for compensation in respect of damage to property exceeding Rs. 2000/ -, the claimant may at his option, refer the claim to a civil court for adjudication, and where a reference is so made, the Claims Tribunal will have no jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to such claim. Section 110 -B provides for the award by the Claims Tribunal.

(3.) AS the Defendant -railway will be entitled to raise all objections that are known to law, the learned Counsel submitted that the railways could not be impleaded unless the provisions of Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure were followed. He also contended that the suit against the railways is barred by limitation and in these circumstances, the suit against them is not maintainable. All the questions that are to be raised by the railways will be decided by the Claims Tribunal according to law. These revision petition are dismissed. The Respondent -claimants in civil revision petitions Nos. 326 and 328 of 1973 will have their costs in these revisions from the Petitioners.