Delhi High Court Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Kuldip Lal Bhandari And Ors. on 9 December, 1968 Equivalent citations: AIR1970DELHI37, 5(1969)DLT543, AIR 1970 DELHI 37, ILR (1969) DELHI 497 1969 ACJ 276, 1969 ACJ 276 JUDGMENT V.S. Deshpande, J. (1) Due to ant to the D.T.U. bus No. Dlp 658 belonging to the appellantMunicipal Corporation of Delhi, a lady named Mrs. B. Bhandari suffered injuries which resulted in her death. The respondents, as her legal representatives, claimed compensation from the appellant before the Mtoor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi on the ground that the injuries caused to Mrs. Bhandari were due to the negligence of the appellant's employees, viz. the Driver and the Conductor of the bus. The claim was dismissed by the Tribunal but was partially decreed by a learned Single Judge of the then Circuit bench of the Punjab High Court for Delhi in an appeal preferred to the High Court against the award of the Tribunal under Section110D of the Mtoor Vehicles Act, 1939. (2) The present appeal was preferred before a Division Bench of this Court under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent applicable to this High Court. It is common ground that such an appeal lies from the judgment of a single Judge of the High Court. The respondents have, however, raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that the decision of the learned single Judge against which this appeal purports to be made is nto a "judgment" within the meaning of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The Divion Bench speaking through my lord the Chief Justice surveyed the relevant case law on the subject and referred the matter to the Full Bench on the 15th May, 1968 in view of the apparent lack of agreement among the judicial decisions. (3) The Central question for consideration by us is whether the judgment under appeal given by the learned single Judge in an appeal against the award of the Claims Tribunal under Section IIOD of the Mtoor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) is:(1) a judgment, (2) given by a Judge of this Court within the meaning of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent (4) In view of the lack of agreement among the judicial decisions ntoiced in the referring order, it is necessary to go to the first principles underlying the question. It is to be ntoed that the claim for compensation made by the relatives of the deceased is based on the alleged negligence of the employees of the appellantCorporation. Its nature is simply a suit for negligence. Negligence is a well established ground for claim for damages in the law of torts. Such a claim has been a part of common law for many years and has been entertained by civil Courts in their ordinary action. Claim for damages for injuries caused by the persons in charge of the mtoor vehicle was also entertained by ordinary Civil Courts in India prior to the enactment of Mtoor Vehicles Amendment) Act, 100 of 1956, which for the first time empowered the State Governments to constitute one or more Mtoor Accidents. Claims Tribunals. Under Section 110 of the amended Mtoor Vehicles Act, the State Government may constitute one or more Mtoor Accidents Claims Tribunals for such areas as may be specified. It is only in respect of those areas for which such Claims Tribunals are constituted, that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is taken away by the Claims Tribunals. For. the rest of the areas, the Civil Courts will continue to entertain these claims. The significance of this fact for the nature of the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal is that the nature of the claim which is entertained by the Claims Tribunal is precisely the same which is entertained by a Civil Court. The Tribunal itself is nto, however, a Civil Court, inasmuch as the very purpose of establishing it was to adjudicate all these claims more expeditiously than would be done by a Civil Court. This is why the procedure of making the claim before the Tribunal under Section 110A and the enquiry made by the Tribunal under Section 110B are of a summary nature as distinguished from the ordinary procedure of Civil Courts. Section 110C gives certain specified powers of a Civil Court to the Tribunal showing thereby that the Tribunal is nto an ordinary Court of law. Section 110D gives right of appeal to the High Court against an award of the Tribunal except when an award is for an amount which is less than Rs. 2,000.00. (5) The decision of the Tribunal is called an "award." The word "award", nto being defined in the Act, has to be construed in its general sense. The ordinary dictionary meaning of an award is a judicial decision. It is true that the decision of an Arbitrator is also called an award. But, it would nto be correct to think that the award is given only by an Arbitrator and that whenever the decision is called an "award", the Tribunal giving it must be an Arbitration Tribunal. It is w