OMPRAKASH MISHRA Vs. NATIONAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant had filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Jabalpur, claiming Rs. 6,000/- for damages to his car and Rs. 10,200/for personal injuries. The Tribunal passed an order on 6-5-1961 holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. This appeal is filed against that order.

(2.) THE Tribunal was constituted by a Notification, dated 7-8-1959, which was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette on 18-9-1959. The accident in question took place on 13-9-1959, that is, between these two dates. in Kumari Sushma mehta v. C. P. T. Services, Misc. First Appeal No. 58 of 1961. (AIR 1964 Madh-Pra 133) we have held that the Tribunal should be deemed to have been constituted on the date on which the notification was published in the Gazette. Accordingly, the accident took place before the constitution of the Tribunal. We have further, held in that case that in those cases where the cause of action for compensation arose prior to the constitution of the Tribunal, the party injured has the remedy of filing a suit and there is no jurisdiction in the Tribunal to entertain an application for granting compensation in accordance with Section 110-F of the Motor Vehicles act.

(3.) HOWEVER, in the instant case an additional ground has been raised by the appellant to support his contention that the Tribunal should have decided the petition. The Tribunal held on 2-9-1960 that the petition was not tenable with respect to the damages to the car, as Section 110-A related only to personal injuries. Against this order, the appellant went up in appeal and a Division Bench of this Court decided on 15-3-1961 in Misc. (First) Appeal No. 159 of 1960, (Dr. Om Prakash v. National Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. , AIR 1962 Madh-Pra 19), that the Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claim regarding damages to the car also and directed the Tribunal to proceed to adjudicate upon the whole claim on merits. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that this decision operated as res judicata and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction after this decision to dismiss the petition on the ground that the claim could not be tried for want of jurisdiction.