JUDGMENT
Kapadia, J.
1. The present revision application is filed by the petitioners against the order passed on application at exhibit 60 in Special Civil Suit No. 92 of 1982 by the learned Joint Civil Judge (SD), surendranagar, on December 6, 1985. By the said application, it was prayed that the issue regarding jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit be decided first. The learned civil judge, by the aforesaid order, has dismissed the said application with no order as to costs.
2. The short facts of the case can be stated as under:
3. On or about November 11, 1979, at about 11.00 p.m. the jeep bearing the number GTQ 7944 was driven by the driver of the Gujarat electricity Board, Shri Juvansing, and it was going to the Muli for the purpose of the Electricity Board’s work. He was driving the jeep on the correct side. When he reached a place between Surendrangar Lok Vidyalaya and Shakpar, public carrier belonging to original defendant no. 1, Bharead Deva Mepabhai, and driven by defendant No. 2, bearing No. GTX 5295 came from Rajkot. It was in excessive speed and was driven rashly and negligently and on the wrong side and collided with the jeep of the Board. The jeep turtled and substantial damage was caused. Since there was rashness and negligence on the part of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, they are liable to pay damage to the Board and defendant No.3, insurance company, is also liable to pay the said amount because of the vicarious liability.
4. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their written statements, interalia, contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. It is submitted that section 110F of the Motor vehicle Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain any question relating to any claims for compensation and since the Claims tribunal has been constituted, the civil court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit. The learned judge held that the loss of property to the extent of Rs. 2,000 would be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, but for a claim exceeding Rs.2,000, an option is given to the claimant for bringing his claim in the civil court. Reliance has been placed on the decision of various High Courts as also on the judgment of this court and it is stated by the learned judge that he was bound by the judgment of this court and, accordingly, he held that the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain such claim.
5. Against the aforesaid order, the present revision application has been filed. Mr.R.H.Mehta, learned advocated appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that in view of the language of sections 110, 110A and 110F of the Motor Vehicles Act, it should be held that the Tribunal should have jurisdiction and only after the claim is made before the Tribunal, the Tribunal can make the reference to the civil court for adjudication at the option of the claimant. An extract of the relevant sections 110, 110A and 110F of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:
“110. Claims Tribunals.- (1) A State Government may, by notification 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 damage 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 adjuction, and where a reference is so made, the Claims Tribunal shall have no jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to such claim.”
“110A. Application for compensation.- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub section (1) of section 110 may be made –
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(aa) by the owner of the property; or
(b) where death has result from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(c) by an agent duly authorised by the person injured or all sort any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:….”
“110F. Bar of jurisdiction of civil courts. – Where any Claims Tribunal has been constituted for any area, 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 injuction 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.”
6. On a plain reading of the aforesaid section, it is clear that the claim Tribunal will have jurisdiction in respect of claims for compensation in respect of accident involving death of, or bodily injury to, person arising out of the accident during the use of motor vehicle or damage to any property of a third party so arising or both, but is has carved out an exception in respect of claim for compensation in respect of damages to property exceeding Rs. 2,000 and when such a claim exceeds Rs. 2,000, option is given to the claimants for referring him claims for adjudication to the civil court and on his so making a reference, the Claim Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to such claim. Now section 110A, after amendment , has introduced clause (aa) wherein it is provided that the application can be made by the owner of the property and section 110F states that the civil court would not have jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to any claim for compensation which may be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunal. In that view matter, it is clear that whenever there is a claim in respect of damages to property exceeding Rs.2,000 and for which the claimant has already made in claim in the civil court for adjudication by virtue of the express language of the proviso to section 110(1) of the Act, the Claims Tribunal will not have jurisdiction. When that is so, section 110F will not bar the jurisdiction of the civil court inasmuch as the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to such claim after the claim is referred to the civil court by the filing of a suit by the claimant. Without referring to any ruling it is clear that section 110 will not come into operation in the present case, as a civil suit is already filed in the civil court and thereupon, the Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain such claim. In that view of the matter, prima facie, the argument of Shri R.H.Mehta that there is bar section 110F has no substance.
7. Further, on a perusal of section 110 and particularly the proviso thereto, it is clear that it is the claimants who has an option to refer the claim to the civil court for adjudication and when the option is given to the claimant for referring his claim to the civil court for adjudication, it cannot be said that first he has to file the claim before the Claims Tribunal and Tribunal has to make a reference. There is no provision in the entire Motor Vehicles Act empowering the Claims Tribunal to refer the case to the civil court. It may be stated that there is also a judgment of this Patel(1973) ACJ 149 (Guj) delivered by the chief Justice Bhagwati (as he then was ). In the said case, it has been specifically held that were there is loss or damage to property, the claimants has not been given right to make an application under the provision of section 110A of the Act to the Claims Tribunal and the only remedy will be in a civil court.
8. However, Mr. R.H.Mehta submitted that the said ruling would not be applicable to the present case in view of the introduction of clause (aa) in section 110 (1). It may be stated that section 110 to section 110F have been substituted by the Act No. 100 of 1956 and thereafter section 110 and 110A have been amended by Act No. 56 of 1969 as well as by Act No. 47 of 1978 which have come into force from January 16, 1979. By the said Act No.56 of 1969, option is given in respect of a claim including a claim for compensation in respect of damage to property exceeding Rs. 2,000 to the claimant for referring his claim for adjuction to the civil court and by the amendment Act No. 47 of 1978 which has come in to force on January 16, 1979, clause (aa) is added in sub-section(10 of section 110A giving a right for making application for compensation to the owner of the property. However, that would not take away the option which is given by the proviso to sub-section 110 of the Act. clause (aa) to section 110A was necessary to cloth the Tribunal with the power of adjucting claims with regard to property not exceeding Rs. 2,000 because in the absence of that, the tribunal would not have jurisdiction to deal with the claim in respect of damage to property. It is a well-settled rule of interpretation of a statutory provision that it should be construed ex visceribus actus, that is, within the four corners of the statue. No part of a statue should be construed in isolation, for the intention of the Legislature is to be found not in one part of the statue or the other but in the whole of the statues and the meaning of a statutory provision must, therefore, be gathered reading the statute as a whole. Therefore, reading all the aforesaid provision in the light of the proviso, as stated above, it is clear that when there is a claim with regard to damage to property exceeding Rs. 2,000, the claimant has been given the option of referring his claim to the civil court and when such claim is referred by him to the civil court, the Tribunal will not have jurisdiction. Thus, even after the amendment, the effect of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 110 is not in any way affected, i.e., the right of option given to the claimant is not taken a way. Thus, I do not find that the position in any ways would differ after the amendment of section 110A of the Motor vehicle Act in respect of claim for compensation in respect of damage to property exceeding Rs.2,000.
9. Mr. Mheta a submits that the expression “refer the claim to the civil court” cannot be equated with “file a suit in the civil court” and he places reliance on the judgment of the Orissa High Court in the case of Central Road Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Orissa State Commercial Transport Corporation, AIR 1985 Orissa 256; (1987) Comp Cas 465 (Orissa). It is true that in the said case, the said case, the said view is taken by the Orissa High Court. However, as stated earlier, it is clear from the proviso that option is given to the claimants for referring the matter to the civil court for adjudication of his claim and that the Tribunal has not been empowered to refer the matter to the civil court. These two things are very clear indications to suggest that it is for the claimant to refer his claim to the civil court. When there is no mode prescribed for referring a claim to the civil court for adjudication, the normal mode is to file a suit. Merely it is expressed “refer the claim to the civil court”, it does not mean that the Legislature has intended that reference should be made, the Claim Tribunal shall have no jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to such claim” make it clear that “reference is so made” means that when the claimant exercise the option by referring his claim to the civil court and when such reference made “either by filing a suit or otherwise”, the Tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to entertain any question any question relating to such claim. The word “entertain” indicates that the Tribunal has nothing to do with the referring of the claim to the civil court which is purely within the option of the claimant. In that view of the matter, I, with respect to the Orissa High Court, do not agree with the view that the words “refer the claim to the civil court” cannot be equated with the words” to file a suit in the civil court”. In the above view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by Mr.Mehta. Hence, the revision application is summarily rejected.