VANAMA RAJU Vs. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This an appeal under Sec. 110-D of the Motor vehicles Act, is at the instance of the petitioner-claimant. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 110-A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. for award of compensation of Rs. 8,200/- with interest from the date of accident for the damages caused to the shop of the petitioner in a bus accident. The petitioner is the proprietor of cloth shop at Razole. On 31-1-1977 a bus belonging to A.P.S.R.T.C. ran into his shop and destroyed his show-case and furniture. As the bus approached the shop of the petitioner which was in the main road Razole it is being driven rashly and negligently by the 2nd respondent and enteted into the petitioner's shop The front portion of the shop was damaged and a tailor received minor injuries. Because of the impact of the bus show cases, an almyrah, lights, a sewing machine, a cycle a table fan and other articles worth Rs. 3200/-were destroyed The petitioner suffered shock and he was unable to carry on his business for some time and thereby the business turnover in his shop suffered considerably. The estimate of loss in business is made at Rs. 4,000/-and for mental shock the claim of Rs. 1000/-is claimed. The 1st respondent Opposed the claim by stating that the bus was not driven rashly or negligently by the 2nd respondent driver but the accident occured due to a cyclist and another person going on a motor cycle, suddenly crossing the road. The bus was then going at a speed at 15 KM per hour and suddenly a cyclist came in front of the bus carrying another person on the carrier of the cycle At the same time another person riding a motor cycle, also carrying one more person on its saddle came in the opposite direction on the right side. The motor cyclist crossed the road to the other side and so the driver of the bus had to swerve it to the right side and as the brakes failed the accident occurred The bus did not crash into the shop and no damage was caused to the property. But for the failure of the brakes the accident would not have accured The petitioner did not suffer any loss or damage or mental shock and the claim deserves to be rejected. The 2nd respondent in a separate counter denied the allegation of rash and negligent driving. It is also denied that the bus dashed against the shop and the petitioner or anybody else sustained injuries in the alleged accident. The issues were framed regarding the rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent and the quantum of compensation payable The court below held that there is no satisfactory and clinching proof of the bus having been driven by the 2nd respondent rashly and negligently but some damage appears to have been caused by the dashing of the bus against the shop In so far as quantum of damages the court below held that the petitioner is not entitled to award of any compensation in consequence of the accident in question

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant contended that admittedly the bus hit against the shop and in view of the damage caused to the shop the court below should have awarded damages as claimed by the petitioner The learned cousel for the respondent at the outset raised a preliminary objection that this claim for damage of the property is not maintainable as the accident occurved on 31-1-1977 and claim petition was filed on 11-7-1977 prior to the amendment made to Sec. 110-A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 by in serting clause (aa) providing for award of damages to the owner of the property and in any event the petitioner is not entitled to the award of any compensation in the circumstances. To appreciate the preliminary objection raised by, the learrned counsel for the respondent it is necessary to get at Sec. 110 and 110-A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, to the extent relevant.

(3.) Sec. 110 authorises the State Government to constiture the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals specifying the area of operation for the purpose of adjudicating claims for compensa tion in respect of all accidents involving death or bodily injury to persons or damages to any property of a third party. Sec. 110 -A prior to insertion of amedment, by introduction of clause (aa) with effect from 16-1-1979 conferred right on the person who sustained injury or the legal representatives in the event of death to claim compensation. The absence of specification of right to claim compensation in respect of damage to property is significant and conspicious. The essence of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the expression" injury in unamended Sec. 110-A is comprehensive enoughto he take in the damage to the property and the amendment by (aa) by Act 47 of 1948 with effect from 16-1-1979 is clarificatory and should not be considered as a remedy or right conferred for the first time. The learned ceunsef for the respondent contended that there was deliberate omission prior to amendement by (aa) and the expression "injury" should be restricted and allocated to the bodily injury only. The learned counsel referred to the decision of Karnataka High Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corp. v. Jyothi Constructions, Mangalore. In this case the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation instituted a claim against the respondent for damages to the bus caused by a truck due to accident The plea by the respondent was that Sec. 110-A (1) did not enable a person to prefer an application for damages to the property and the combined reading of Secs. 1.10 and 110-A indicates that the persons who suffer merely damages to the property are not entitled to apply to the Claims Tribunal for compensation. In this context the expression" injury has been interpreted as wide enough to cover damages to the property also. The next decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is Haryana State vs. Pusa Ram In this case the Haryana State preferred a claim application before the Tribunal by way of compensation on the allegation that 5 buffaloes of the progeny testing farm, Hissar were killed by rash and negligent driving of truck No. HRH 7467. The claim was resisted by the respondent who raised a preliminary objection that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. On these facts the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that "injury" in clause (a) of Sec 110 bears comprehensive ambit and covers damage to the property also The learned counsel for the respondent at the outset relied upon the unreported decision of Muktadar, J in A. A. O. 445/1979 dated 8-10-1980. in this case it was contended that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of damage to the property before the amendment which cane into force on 26-12-1978. In this case the accident occured on 18-3-1977. This decision centered round the aspect of retrospetivity of the amendment and in view of the committed prospective texture of the amendment retrospective effect cannot be attributed to the amendment but the othtr dimension whether the expression "injury" in the unamended provision takes in its fold the damages to the property also was not considered.