Yashwant Raj vs Mohan Lal And Ors. on 30 March, 1983
20. As there was conflict of decisions in this respect, the legislature in its wisdom thought it fit to resolve the controversy and the provisions of Section 110 of the Act were amended so as to specie fically make a mention about loss or damage to property. From the amendment, which has been introduced in Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it would not be proper to presume that the law was otherwise before the amendment was made, but the proper construction to place would be that the position of law was always, even before the amendment was introduced in Section 110 of the Act, was to include the claim in respect of loss or damage to property within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. However, as some discordant notes were struck in a few decisions, the legislature thought it proper to explain the position so as to make a specific mention of claim in respect of loss or damage to property in Section 110 and in this manner the decisions of the majority of the High Courts appear to be fully justified. It may be pointed out that from the language of Section 110 of the Act, as it stood prior to the amendment introduced therein by the" Amending Act of 1969, there appeared no bar to the entertainment of a composite claim by the Tribunal in respect of loss caused on account of death or bodily injury together with loss or damage to property. The Tribunal was entitled to entertain claims for compensation in respect of accidents "involving the death of, or bodily injury to" persons, arising put of the use of motor vehicles. A bare reading of the provisions of Section 110 (1) of the Act as it then stood, shows that it was an enabling provision in respect of accidents which involved death or bodily injury, but the jurisdiction of the claims tribunal was not restricted to enterain claims merely for compensation relating to death or bodily injury. The legislature did not use the expression in respect of which would have restricted the jurisdiction of the claims tribunal, but the expression 'involving' was used which made it clear that death or bodily injury may be involved in the accident with damage to property or without any such claim. Thus, I find myself in agreement with the majority of the High Courts and agree to the view taken in Dr. Dm Prakash Mishra's case (AIR 1962 Madh Pra 19) by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which view has also been shared by the Guiarat, Mysore, Assam and a learned Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in 'Jaswant Kaur's case (1971 Ace CJ 31) and by a learned Judge of this Court in Dr. Achalmal Singhvi v. Chand Khan & Sons, 1977 Raj LW 84: (AIR 1977 Rai 213). Thus, although the present case relates to a period prior to the amendment of Section 130 (1) of the Act, yet in my view, the claimant was entitled to an award for damages to the motor-cycle as well, as this was composite claim petition fr which compensation was claimed in respect of bodily injury as well as for damage to property, namely, the motorcycle.