1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.821 OF 1996 Mrs.Rajani Vasant Ranade ...Appellant vs. 1 Mohamad Ataullah 2 B.A.Jayaram 3 New India Assurance ...Respondents Ms Snehal Ratnakar i/b Ms Suhasini Mutalik for the appellant Mr.S.R.Singh for respondent no.3 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 12, 2010 JUDGMENT : 1 The present appeal is preferred by the claimant in a claim petition filed under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1939. By the impugned Judgment and Award, the claim petition has been partly allowed. 2 The case of the appellant-claimant as made out in the claim petition is that she is the proprietor of a transport service and doing the business of transport as a contract carrier. The first respondent was the driver in the employment of the second respondent. The second respondent at the relevant time was the owner of a luxury bus. 3 On 9 th September 1985, the truck owned by the Appellant was carrying a stock of motor spirit containing 12000 litres of petrol. The truck was proceeding from Wadala in Mumbai to Pune. Accident occurred at Vadgaon Mawal when the luxury bus driven by the opponent no.1 gave a rash to the truck owned by the appellant. The 2 allegation is that the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. It is the case of the appellant that that out of 12000 litres of motor spirit total 8200 litres of the liquid drained away and as a result loss suffered by the appellant was to the extent of Rs.61,500/- towards actual loss of motor spirit. A claim of Rs.5753/- was made on account of damage to the truck. A sum of Rs.5000/- was claimed towards loss of business during the period when the truck was under repairs. A claim was also made in the sum of Rs.350/- on account of medical expenditure of the Cleaner of the truck. The claim was contested by the 3 rd respondent (insurer of the luxury bus). The claim was allowed to the extent of Rs.5000/-. The claim of compensation on account of loss of motor spirit was negatived on the ground that the motor spirit belong to Indian Oil Corporation. The Tribunal held that the appellant was not the owner of the said motor spirit for which the claim was made. As stated earlier, the claim of Rs.5000/- was allowed towards compensation on account of non user of truck for 40 days when the same was under repairs. 4 The learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the evidence on record. She submitted that the appellant was transporting the motor spirit owned by the Indian Oil Corporation. The learned counsel pointed out that the claim was made by the Indian Oil Corporation on account of loss of motor spirit and the appellant was required to pay the said amount. She submitted that even assuming that the Indian Oil Corporation was the owner of the petrol which was lost due to the accident, on the basis of the subrogation, the appellant is the owner of the motor spirit. She placed reliance on the certain observations made by Jammu and Kashmir High Court in case 3 of Kamal Kusha vs. Kirpal Singh and others (AIR 1988 Jammu and Kashmir 11). She submitted that a technical view has been taken by the Tribunal and the entire claim ought to have been allowed. 5 I have carefully considered the submissions. The Appellant could not produce documentary evidence regarding the claim of amount allegedly spent on repairs of the truck. The motor spirit which was being transported was not owned by the appellant. The motor spirit was admittedly owned by the Indian Oil Corporation. The correspondence produced on record shows that a sum of Rs.52,910.75 was recovered by Indian Oil Corporation. Section 110-A confers jurisdiction on the Tribunal. A claim petition is maintainable in case of injury or death or damage to the property arising out a motor accident. The person who claims compensation on account of damage to the property must be owner of the property which is damaged as a result of the accident. In the present case, the appellant is not the owner of the motor spirit. The claim made on account of loss of petrol is based on a contract between the Appellant and Indian Oil Corporation. As per the contract, the Appellant was required to pay compensation to the said Corporation. Thus, the claim of the Appellant is a contractual claim. Moreover, the Appellant was not the owner of the petrol. There is no proof of subrogation. Even assuming that there was a subrogation, the claim will lie before a regular Civil Court. Therefore, the decision of Jammu and Kashmir High Court will not help the Appellant. The Cleaner of the truck did not make any claim. Moreover, the claim for medical expenses at the instance of the Appellant was not maintainable. In the circumstances, the claim of the appellant save and except a claim of Rs.5000/- is concerned, was rightly 4 rejected by the Tribunal. 6 No interference is called for with the impugned Judgment and Award. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE