Karnataka High Court
Chief Secretary To Government Of ... vs Charles Perea And Anr. on 3 July, 1986
Equivalent citations: II(1986)ACC523, [1989]65COMPCAS777(KAR), ILR1986KAR2627
JUDGMENT P.A. Kulkarni, J.
1. This is a revision by defendants Nos. I and 2 against the order dated August 31, 1984, passed by the District Judge, Chikmagalur, in M.A. No. 15 of 1983, reversing the order dated July 13, 1983, passed by the civil judge, Chikmagalur, in O.S. No. 51 of 1980, ordering the return of the plaint on the ground that the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.
2. The plaintiff is the owner of a jeep bearing registration No. MYQ 9996. It was in a good condition. On April 25, 1979, the jeep was being carefully and slowly driven by him. His two brothers, his estate manager and three children were also travelling in the jeep. They were returning from Muthodi block of their estate to their main estate situated near Mallandur. He was driving the jeep keeping to the left side of the road. On April 25, 1979, at about 11-30 a.m, while the jeep was thus being driven, a lorry bearing registration No. MES 4270 belonging to the first defendant came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction at a high speed. The lorry overtook a bus and dashed against the jeep. The jeep was damaged and the inmates of the jeep were injured. As the damage caused to the jeep was more than Rs. 2,000 he has not included it in the claim petition. He filed a suit claiming damages of Rs. 11,470.
3. The defendants resisted the suit alleging that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for damages caused to the property in the accident. According to the defendants, it was only the Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act that had jurisdiction to try such claims.
4. The civil judge, before whom the suit was pending, came to the conclusion that the civil court had no jurisdiction at all to entertain a suit for recovery of damages caused to a vehicle in the accident. According to the trial court, it is only the Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act that has jurisdiction to entertain such claims. Taking this view, the trial court ordered the return of the plaint. The plaintiff, being aggrieved by the order pessed by the trial court, approached the District Judge, Chikmagalur, with M.A. No. 15 of 1983. The District Judge came to the conclusion that the civil court had the jurisdiction even in such cases and taking this view, he set aside the order passed by the civil judge. The defendants, being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Judge, have approached thiscourt with the present revision.
5. The plaintiff has filed this suit claiming damages on account of the damage caused to his jeep in the accident. He has claimed Rs. 11,470 as damages.
6. Section 110(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as :
"A State Govetnment may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinafter referred to as Claims Tribunals), for such area as may be specified in the notification 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 :
Provided that where such claim includes a claim for compensation in respect of damage to property exceeding rupees two thousand, 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 shall have no jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to such claim ".
Therefore, a simple reading of Section 110(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act makes it clear that it is open to the claimant to include a claim for damages on account of the damage caused to the vehicle in the accident if the amount of damages does not exceed Rs. 2,000. If the damages caused to the vehicle does not exceed Rs. 2,000, it is only the Claims Tribunal that would have jurisdiction to try such claims. But, if the claim of damage exceeds Rs. 2,000 the option is left to the claimant either to approach the Tribunal or to approach the civil court. If the claimant chooses to approach the civil court, the Claims Tribunal would not have jurisdiction at all. Therefore, a simple reading of the proviso to Section 110(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act makes it manifestly clear that if the claim for damages exceeds Rs. 2,000, it is for the claimant to choose the forum. The claimant may choose either the civil court or the Claims Tribunal. In this case, the claimant has chosen the civil court for reasons best known to him. Therefore, the trial court, in my opinion, committed a serious error in holding that the civil court would not have jurisdiction at all to entertain a suit for recovery of damages on account of the damage caused to a vehicle though the amount claimed is more than Rs. 2,000. The District Judge has rightly interpreted Section 110(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and has rightly come to the conclusion that as the amount exceeds Rs. 2,000, the claimant can approach the civil court with a suit for recovery of the damages. Therefore, the order passed by the District Judge does not need/any interference. In the result, the revision is dismissed. No costs.