Pattanaik, J.
1. The Union of India through General Manager, NorthernRailways is in appeal against the Revisional order of theHigh Court of Allahabad. By the impugned order, the HighCourt has upheld the order of the Claims Tribunal onpreliminary issue as to whether the Motor Vehicle ClaimsTribunal has jurisdiction to entertain claim for compensationagainst Railway Administration, in the event it is held that forthe accident in question there was no negligence on the partof the Railway Administration. A taxi came in collision withAllahabad-Saharanpur Passenger Train as a result of whichpassengers died and some sustained bodily injuries. Forsustaining such bodily injuries arising out of the accident,applications were filed claiming compensation under Section110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referredto as 'The Act'), against the insurer of the tax as well asagainst the Railway Administration. It was alleged that theaccident occurred due to the negligence of the employees ofthe Railway staff at the railway crossing, the railwaycrossing having been kept open for the high-way traffic at atime the train was to pass through the point. The RailwayAdministration filed written statement taking the plea thatapplication for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Actcan be filed against the insurer, owner or driver of the MotorVehicles and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain theclaim against the Railway Administration. In view of theaforesaid stand, a preliminary issue was framed by theTribunal and the Tribunal held that if claimants havesustained injuries in an accident arising out of the use of aMotor Vehicle then the Tribunal will have the jurisdiction toentertain application for claim not only against the owner orinsurer of the vehicle but also against any other vehiclewhich came in collision, and in the case in hand, against theRailway Administration. Against the aforesaid order of theTribunal Revision having been filed a learned Single Judgeof Allahabad High Court referred the matter to the DivisionBench and by the impugned judgment the Division Benchhaving upheld the order of the Tribunal, the present appealshave been preferred by the grant of Special Leave. Whenthese appeals were taken up for hearing on 14th February,2002 before a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court, thedecision of this Court in the case of Union of India v.United India Insurance Company -- : (1997)8SCC683 : (1997)8SCC683 , was placed before the Court. Theconclusion of the Court recorded in paragraph 41 of theaforesaid judgment did not find favour with the two learnedJudges who were hearing the matter and accordingly it wasdirected that the matter be referred to a larger Bench and thatis how it has come before us.
2. Mrs. Indira Sawhney, learned counsel appearingfor the appellant Railway Administration contends that inrespect of an application for compensation filed underSection 110-A of the Act, the Tribunal constituted under Sub-section(1) of Section 110 can pass an award under Section110-A against the insurer or owner or driver of the vehicleinvolved or by all or any of them, as the case may be. Apassenger train not being a Motor Vehicle, no application forclaim of compensation against Railway Administration couldbe entertained by the Claims Tribunal constituted under Sub-section(1) of Section 110 if the death or injury has occurredon account of a collision between a Motor Vehicle and aPassenger Train. The impugned judgment of the High Court,therefore, according to the learned counsel is unsustainable inlaw. In support of this contention reliance has been placedon the decision of the Court in the case of Union of India v.United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Ors. (supra). It iscontended on behalf of the respondent, however, that onaccount of a collision between a Motor Vehicle and a Train ifdeath or injury is resulted to several passengers then theaccident must be held to have arisen out of the use of MotorVehicle. In such a case, therefore, the jurisdiction of theTribunal cannot be said to be ousted merely because thecollision took place between a Motor Vehicle and aPassenger Train. It is further contended that the RailwayAdministration cannot be absolved of its liability on the pleathat the employees of the train were not negligent.
3. On account of the rapid development of roadtransport and increase in number of Motor Vehicles on theroad the incidence of road accidents by Motor Vehicleshaving increased enormously the Motor Vehicles Act enactedby the Parliament was amended and the provisions wereinserted for payment of compensation in certain cases ofaccident without proof of fault or negligence on the part ofthe driver of the vehicle. The claim for compensation inrespect of the accidents involving death or bodily injury topersons arising out of the use of Motor Vehicles as well asthe insurance of the Motor Vehicles against the third partyrisk and the liability of the insurer are contained in ChapterVIII of the Motor Vehicles Act. The State Government hasbeen empowered under Section 110(1) of the Act toconstitute one or more Motor Vehicles Accidents ClaimTribunals by notification in the Official Gazette. Section110-A provides for filing an application for compensationand Section 110-B is the power of the Claims Tribunal topass an award on receiving an application for compensationmade under Sub-section (A) of Section 110. The procedureand powers of the Claims Tribunal are enumerated in Section110-C of the Act. It is not necessary for adjudicating thepoint in issue to examine and notice any other provision ofthe Act. In the case of Union of India v.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) applications for compensationhad been filed either by the injured passengers or thedependant of the deceased passengers travelling in the ill-fatedMotor Vehicle both against the insurer of the MotorVehicle as well as against the Railway Administration andone of the contention which had been raised before this Courtby the Railway Administration was whether a claim forcompensation would at all be maintainable before theTribunal against other persons or agencies which are held tobe guilty of composite negligence or are joint tortfeasors, andif the same arose out of the use of the Motor Vehicle. Onconsideration of different provisions of the Motor VehiclesAct this Court ultimately came to hold that, 'We hold thatthe claim for compensation is maintainable before theTribunal against other persons or agencies which are held tobe guilty of composite negligence or are joint tortfeasors,and if arising out of use of the motor vehicle. We hold thatthe Tribunal and the High Court were right in holding that anaward could be passed against the Railway if its negligencein relation to the same accident was also proved.' The Courtalso came to hold that the views expressed by Gauhati,Orissa, and Madras High Courts to the effect that no awardcan be passed against others except the owner/driver orinsurer of the motor vehicle are not correct, and on the otherhand the view taken by the Allahabad, Punjab and Haryana,Gujarat, Kerala and Rajasthan High Courts to the effect thatthe claim lies before the Tribunal even against another jointtortfeasor connected with the same accident or against whomcomposite negligence is allege.d We are in respectfulagreement with the aforesaid conclusion of the Court in theaforesaid case. Having said so it was further held that if it isultimately found that there is no negligence on the part of thedriver of the vehicle or there is no defect in the vehicle butthe accident is only due to the sole negligence of otherparties/agencies then on the finding the claim would go outof Section 110 of the Act because the case would becomeexclusive negligence of Railways and again if the accidenthad arisen only on account of the negligence of persons otherthan the driver/owner of the motor vehicle the claim wouldnot be maintainable before the Tribunal. It is this observationof the Court in the aforesaid case which is strongly reliedupon by Mrs. Indira Sawhney, the learned counselappearing for the Railway Administration and it is thisobservation with which the two learned Judges hearing theappeal did not prima facie agree with for which the referencehas been made to this larger Bench. The question that arisesfor consideration, therefore, is whether an application filedbefore a Claims Tribunal for compensation in respect ofaccidents involving the death or bodily injury to personsarising out of the use of Motor Vehicle and the claim is madeboth against the insurer, owner and driver of the motorvehicle as well as the other joint tortfeasors, if a finding onhearing is reached that it is solely the negligence of the jointtortfeasor and not the driver of the Motor Vehicle then wouldthe Tribunal loose the jurisdiction to award compensationagainst the joint tortfeasor. It is not disputed, and as has beenalready held by this court in the case of Union of India v.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) that a claim forcompensation on account of the accident arising out of theuse of a Motor Vehicle could be filed before a Tribunalconstituted under the Motor Vehicles Act not only against theowner or insurer of the Motor Vehicle but also againstanother joint tortfeasor connected with the accident or againstwhom composite negligence is alleged. A combined readingof Section 110, 110-A, which deal with the Constitution ofone or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal andapplication for compensation arising out of an accident, asspecified in Sub-section (1) of Section 110 unequivocallyindicates that Claims Tribunal would have the jurisdiction toentertain for compensation both by the personsinjured or legal representatives of the deceased when theaccident arose out of the use of Motor Vehicle. The crucialexpression conferring jurisdiction upon the Claims Tribunalconstituted under the Motor Vehicles Act is the accidentarising out of use of Motor Vehicle, and therefore, if therehas been a collision between the motor Vehicle and Railwaytrain then all those persons injured or died could makeapplication for compensation before the Claims Tribunal notonly against the owner, driver or insurer of the Motor Vehiclebut also against the Railway Administration. Once such anapplication is held to be maintainable and the Tribunalentertains such an application, if in course of enquiry theTribunal comes to a finding that it is the other joint tortfeasorconnected with the accident who was responsible and not theowner or driver of the Motor Vehicle then the Tribunalcannot be held to be denuded of its jurisdiction which it hadinitially. In other words, in such a case also the MotorVehicle Claims Tribunal would be entitled to awardcompensation against the other joint tortfeasor, and in thecase in hand, it would be fully justified to awardcompensation against the Railway Administration ifultimately it is held that it was the sole negligence on the partof the Railway Administration. To denude the Tribunal of itsjurisdiction on a finding that the driver of the Motor Vehiclewas not negligent, would cause undue hardship to everyclaimant and we see no justification to interpret theprovisions of the Act in that matter. The jurisdiction of theTribunal to entertain application for compensation flowsfrom the provisions contained in Section 110-A read withSub-section (1) of Section 110. Once the jurisdiction isinvoked and is exercised the said jurisdiction cannot bedivested of on any subsequent finding about the negligenceof the tortfeasor concerned. It would be immaterial if thefinding is arrived at that it is only other joint tortfeasor whowas negligent in causing accident and not the driver of theMotor Vehicle. In our considered opinion the jurisdiction ofthe Tribunal to entertain application for claim ofcompensation in respect of an accident arising out of the useof Motor Vehicle depends essentially on the fact whetherthere had been any use of Motor Vehicle and once that isestablished the Tribunal's jurisdiction cannot be held to beousted on a finding being arrived at a larger point of timethat it is the negligence of the other joint tortfeasor and notthe negligence of the Motor Vehicle in question. We aretherefore, of the considered opinion that the conclusion of theCourt in the case of Union of India v.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) to the effect --
'It is ultimately found that there is no negligence on thepart of the driver of the vehicle or there is no defect in thevehicle but the accident is only due to the sole negligence ofthe other parties/agencies, then on that finding, the claimwould go out of Section 110(1) of the Act because the casewould then become one of the exclusive negligence ofRailways. Again if the accident had arisen only on accountof the negligence of persons other than the driver/owner ofthe motor vehicle, the claim would not be maintainablebefore the Tribunal' is not correct in law and to that extentthe aforesaid decision must be held to have not been correctlydecided.
4. In the aforesaid premises, we do not find anyinfirmity with the impugned judgment of the Division Benchof Allahabad High Court requiring interference of thisCourt. These appeals fail and are dismissed.