AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
WE think that we should not entertain this complaint for two reasons. In the first place, the complaint pertains to claims of damages to be made from Insurance Companies in terms of the policy of insurance in respect of motor accidents. A claim of damages arising from a motor accident has to be adjudicated by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal established under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the M.V. Act for brief). Section 175 thereof bars the jurisdiction of any and every Civil Court to entertain any claim for compensation or to grant any injunction with respect to any matter, with respect to any action taken or to be taken by or before the Claims Tribunal of the concerned area.
IN this connection a reference deserves to be made to the binding ruling of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation v. Consumer Protection Council, reported in I (1995) CPJ 3 (SC)=AIR 1995 Supreme Court at P. 1384. It has been held therein that the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal under Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act is exclusive and no other Forum can have any jurisdiction to entertain any claim of damages with respect to any motor accident. It may be noted that, for the purposes of the aforesaid statutory provision, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held a Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to be a Civil Court. By analogy, this Commission can also be held to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act in view of availability of trappings of a Civil Court in the scheme of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief). Secondly, it would be difficult to accept the contention that the demand for bills or invoices or receipts for repairs carried out pursuant to a motor accident for substantiating a claim of damages from an Insurance Company would amount to any unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 36A of the MRTP Act. The reason therefore is quite simple. The Insurance Companies dealing with policies of insurance inter alia covering motor accidents are nationalised entities. Their accounts are subject to audit. It would therefore, be difficult for them to accept the claim of repairs pursuant to a motor accident without any supporting bill, invoice or voucher in that regard. In that view of the matter, insistence on such bill, invoice or voucher for substantiating a claim for compensation or damages pursuant to a motor accident is quite justifiable and would not therefore, amount to any unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 36A of the MRTP Act. It is needless to say that whether or not any claim for compensation or damages inter alia for repairs pursuant to a motor accident without any supporting bill, invoice or voucher can be accepted would fall within the purview of the Claims Tribunal of the concerned area and it enjoys exclusive jurisdiction in view of Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
In view of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that this complaint application is not maintainable and does not deserve to be entertained. It therefore, deserves to be and is hereby summarily rejected. C.A. dismissed.