S. Swamikkannu, J.
1. In this civil revision petition, an interesting point has been raised with reference to the jurisdiction of a civil Court regarding the claim made in a suit filed by the respondent herein for damages that had been caused to the headlight assembly and the bulb, which came to Rs. 159.86, damage to the mudguard, which was repaired and repainted, which came to Rs. 85 and compensation towards the loss of income from the vehicle, namely, the lorry which got damaged, in that it was kept idle for two days, in a sum of Rs. 300 calculating at the rate of Rs. 150/- per day. It is interesting to note that the occurrence of the accident claimed had taken place at Vijayapuram Bazaar, Tiruvarur and the vehicles that collided were a transport bus belonging to the defendant, Sri Renganathar Transports Private Limited, Thanjavur represented by its partner and the lorry MDO 6252, which was owned by the plaintiff, the Tanjore Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, Tiruvarur by its Secretary. The occurrence wherein these two vehicles collided took place at 3.45 P.M. on 25th June, 1976. According to the plaintiff, the lorry owned by it was proceeding after filling up diesel in the Indian Oil Petrol Bunk at Vijayapuram, and, while it was coming towards west and was also turning to the right in order to return to the plaintiff-society building, which is situated on the east of the petrol bunk on the opposite row, on seeing the defendant's bus approaching at high speed from the west, it was stopped. The defendant is a private limited bus company and is plying between Thanjavur and Nagoor and the defendant's bus was a vehicle bearing registration No. MDO 7331. At that time, it was proceeding from west to east in the Tanjore Road and was being driven by the defendant's driver in the usual course of his business while in the employment of the defendant It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant's bus, which was approaching at high speed, instead of stopping in order to avoid a collision, came and dashed against the plaintiff's lorry. It is alleged in the plaint that the negligent act of the defendant was responsible for the collision. In other words, it was because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus owned by the defendant that the head light, mudguard etc., of the plaintiff's lorry got damaged. In addition to the compensation claimed in this suit towards damages that were actually caused to the body of the lorry, the claim of Rs. 300, was also made by the plaintiff, in that the lorry had to be kept without being actually put to use by the plaintiff--The Tanjore Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited for transporting commodities dealt with by it, claiming the same as the amount that would have been actually earned by putting the said lorry on the road, at the rate of Rs. 150 per day. Thus, the total claim comes to Rs. 544.85.
2. The learned District Munsif who took the suit on file held that the civil Court has got no jurisdiction, because Section 11 OF of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court in that any claim made with respect to any collision that takes place between two vehicles or damage to any extent as a matter of fact, may be made only by way of application under Section 110 of that enactment as amended by Section 57 of Act LVI of 1969, which came into effect from 2nd March, 1970. As a matter of fact, the very same contention is now raised by the learned Counsel for the civil revision petitioner, because the lower appellate Court had reversed the judgment of the trial Court, holding that the civil Court has got jurisdiction because it is only compensation claimed for not having facilitated use of the lorry that got damaged in the accident and as such the said claim has nothing to do with the claim contemplated under the provision of Section 110 of the Act. It may be noted that the lower appellate Court has confirmed the dismissal of the suit with regard to the claim of Rs. 244.85 and set aside the dismissal with regard to the claim or K.s. 300 as compensation for loss of two days, income and remanded the suit for fresh disposal regarding the claim of Rs. 300.
3. Referring to the provisions under Section 110 as amended by Act LVI of 1969 as well as the provision under Section 110-F which bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court with respect to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal for that area as also the ratio decidendi of the decision Thillai Govindan v. Karuppasami and Ors. (1978) 91 L.W. 563 referred to by the trial Court and the decisions in Union of India v. Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad : AIR1972Guj61 , Madras and General Insurance Company v. G. Murthi : AIR1975Mad21 , M. Ayyappan v. Moktar Singh A.I.R. 1970 Mys. 67 N.I. Insurance Co. v. Shanii Misra : 2SCR266 it is also pointed out by Mrs. Revathi for Mr Srini vasan, the learned councel for the revision petitioner herein that the decision in N.L Insurance Company's case : 2SCR266 , is significant so far as the contention raised in this civil revision petition is concerned because of the clear distinction between jurisdiction of a civil Court with respect to a claim and the claim made by an aggrieved person with respect to any accident that takes place on the highway, and by virtue of the enactment of the provision under Section 110-F wherein the claims tribunal has been constdtuted for any area, it has been specifically an mandatorily provided under the said section that no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the claims tribunal for that area, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the claims tribunal in respect of the claim for compensation shall be granted by the civil Court. Referring to the provisions of the above section, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner also refers to the decisions Union of India v. Labh Chana A.I.R. 1963 A.P. 12 and State of M.P. v. Pehlairai : AIR1976MP208 .
The learned Counsel for the petitioner further points out that merely on the ground that a sum of Rs. 300 is claimed towards compensation as a loss of income in that the lorry had been keptby the plaintiif without being utilised for the transport of the commodities dealt with by the plaintiff Go-operative Society, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of a civil Court can be exercised by entertaining the suit with respect to that claim, as held by the lower appellate Court, because Section 110-F is certainly a bar to such kind of entertainment of claim by way of suit, especially when it is in clear terms provided that any claim made with respect to any aggrieved person regarding the vehicle or in respect of the injury sustained by him can be only by an application and not by way of any suit. Any how, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner that, subsequent to the amendment by Act LVI of 1969, there cannot be any jurisdiction entertained by any civil Court with respect to a claim of this nature, and that is barred, and that the lower appellate Court is wrong in having held that the trial Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the claim. In this regard, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner also points out that with respect to the two claims; namely, with respect to dents and damage caused to the head-light of the lorry, are concerned, they are exclusively and ipso jacto damages to the vehicle and as such should be made and must be made mandatorily only under Section 110 and that so far as the claim regarding two days non-facilitating of the vehicle in that the vehicle was kept without being actually put on the road for the purpose of the owner's use, the said claim can certainly also came under the interpretation of the phrase 'any claim' occurring in Section 110-F. I am of opinion that this contention has to be upheld is that any claim also includes claims with respect to the vehicle not being facilitated and that, under the circumstances the suit is not maintainable.
5. Section 57 of the amending Act LVI of 1969 reads as follows:
Amendment of Section 110. In Section 110 of the Principal Act, in Sub-section (1) for the words 'Motor Vehicles' the following words shall be substituted, namely:
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.
6. A clear reading of Section 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act (IV of 1939) as amended by Act (LVI of 1969) clearly shows that the claim now made, as a matter of fact all the claims made in the suit, can be entertained only by way of an application under Section 110 by the Tribunal specially constituted for the purpose of adjudicating upon such claims and Section 110-F clearly bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court with respect to such claims by way of suit and as such the trial Court is correct in having held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The lower appellate Court has reversed the finding of the trial Court with respect to jurisdiction.
7. Therefore, this civil revision petition is one which has to be allowed under the circumstances and it is hereby allowed, because the point raised is one which is quite amenable to the interpretation that can be given for any claim occurring in Section 110-F which bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court so far as the claims made with respect to any accident that takes place. Therefore, without further elaborating the matter which involves the simple question as to whether the claim made in the suit can be agitated by way of a suit, this Court exercising its revision a jurisdiction under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, allows this revision petition.
8. Mr. R. Vijayan learned Counsel for the respondent has stated that further elucidation is necessary with respect to the phrase 'any claim for compensation' occurring in Section 110-F. The section itself is very clear and as such further elucidation is not necessary. Mr. Vijayan submits that the respondent herein may be given an opportunity to put forward his claim before the Tribunal and permission may be given by this Court for filing such application after excusing the delay on account of the pendency of this suit before the trial Court and the appeal before the lower appellate Court. All this will be taken into consideration by the Tribunal when a proper claim is made by the respondent. There will be no order as to costs.