CHAIRMAN, THIRUVALLUVAR TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 09-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
I 
CHAIRMAN, THIRUVALLUVAR TRANSPORT CORPORATION 
A 
v. 
CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL 
FEBRUARY 9, 1995 
(A.M. AHMADI, CJI. AND S. MOHAN, J.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 198~Sections 2(l)(c)(d)(e)(j)(g)(o), 125, 
2l(a)(b}-Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Sections 165, 166, 168 and 175-Juris-
diction in case of compensation-Motor Vehicle Accident-National Con-
sumer Disputes Redressal Commission or Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 
Interpretation of Statutes-General law and Special law-General to 
yield to special law. 
B 
c 
One K succumbed to his head injuries sustained in an accident in 
1990 while travelling in the appella~t's omnibus. The Consumer Protection D 
Council, Tamil Nadu, filed a ~laim on be~alf of the legal representatives 
of the deceased before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Com· 
mission which was contested by the appellant on the ground of lack of 
jurisdiction. The National Commission, without deciding the question of 
jurisdiction, awarded Rs. 5.10 lakh as compensation with 18% interest plus E 
Rs. 10,000 as costs. 
The appellant contested the claim 'contending that the Council had 
no locus standi to maintain the action and the National Commissio~ had 
no jurisdiction to entertain the petition . since 'exclusive jurisdiction to 
entertain such petitions had been conferred by the Motor Vehicles Act on F 
the Claims Tribunal constituted thereunder and that the compensation 
award was without jurisdiction. 
Allowing the appeal; this Court 
HELD : 1. The Claims Tribunal constituted for the area in question G 
had jurisdiction to entertain any claim for compensation arising out of a 
fatal accident under section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which 
couM be said to be a special Act in relation to claims of compensation 
arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The Consumer Protection Act, 
1986 being a law dealing with the question of ~ending protection to H 
1 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 2 S.~.R. 
co~sumers in general, was a general law and should ordinarily yield to tiM 
spedal law. [7-G-H, 8-A] 
· 
· · 
· 2.1. The complaint in question could not be said to be in relation Ito 
any service provided or agreed to be provided to the deceased. The expres-
sic,n "service" as defined by the 1986 Act meant service of any description 
which was.made available to potential users and included the provision of 
facilities, inter alia, in connection with transport. The accident that oc-
curred bad nothing to do with service provided to the deceased. (8-B] 
2.2. The fatal injury was the direct result of the accident on account 
of which the deceased was thrown out of bis seat and dashed against an 
ii'on handle of the seat in front of him. (8-E] 
3.1. The case squarely fell within the ambit of Section 165 of the 1988 
Act and the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal constituted thereunder for the 
area in question had jurisdiction to entertain the same. (8-E] 
3.2. The dispute in question did not attract the jurisdiction of the 
National Commission. whatsoever. This was a case of unW&rranted exer-
dse of jurisdiction.:: [8-F, 9-A] 
UniOn of India and Anr. v. Adai Kalam II, (1993) CPJ 145 (N.C.), 
approyed. 
4. There was no.question of reversing the award in the sense of calling 
upon the widow and the child to refund the amount of compensation already 
received. The~~~~ emphasis was on deciding the question oflaw as similar 
time-barred cases may be taken to the National Commission under the 1986 
Act even though that body had no jurisdiction whatsoever. [9-E-F] 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7142 of 
1993. 
From the Order dated 27.9.93 of the National Consumer Disputes 
Redressal Commission, New Delhi in O.P. 24 of 1991. 
S. Subramaniam, T. Harish Kumar and V. Krishnamurthy for the 
Appellant. 
· H 
R.P. Bhatt, (AC.) for the Resp~ndent. 
,,J.,, 
r 
\-
I 
)--
~ 
j 
lHIRUV ALLUV AR TPT. CORPN. v. CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL [AHMADI, CJ.] 
3 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
AHMADI, CJ. The short question which arises for consideration in 
the present appeal is whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal 
Commission (hereinafter called 'the National Commission')constituted 
under Section 20 of the Consumer ·Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the 1986 B 
Act') had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a claim for compensation arising 
out of a motor vehicle accident, notwithstanding the jurisdiction conferred 
on a Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Ve
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.