S N. Phukan, J.— This is an appeal by the plaintiffs. The learned Assistant District Judge, Kamrup dismissed this suit being M. S. No. 10/81 on the ground that civil Court has no jurisdiction. The plaintiff No. 1 is the owner of the tea estate which is under the management of plaintiff No. 2. A consignment of 230 chests of tea was dispatched from the factory of the garden through the carrier namely Meghalaya Road Carrier defendant No. 2. It is alleged that the consignment was duly insured by defendant No. 1 to cover the transit risks. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction keeping in view of provision of section 110 F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. We have heard Mr. A. C. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and also Mr. S. S, Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. R. L. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. To appreciate the point involved we quote below section 110 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939. "110 Claims Tribunals-(I) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereinafter referred to as Claims Tribunals) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both : Provided that where such claim includes a claim for compensation in respect of damage to property exceeding rupees two thousand, the claimant may, at his option, refer the claim to a civil Court for adjudi­cation, and where a reference is so made, the Claims Tribunal shall have no jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to such claim." 5. From the language of sub-section (1) of section 110 it is clear that the Claims Tribunal can adjudicate upon claims for compensation in respect of accident involving the death of or, bodily injury to, person arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of third party so arising, or both. In the case in hand it is not a question of damages of any property to a third party. In the case in hand it is not a question of damages of any property to a third party. The goods were entrusted by owner to the carrier and the tea chests were damaged due to accident involved. As there was a contract between the owner of the tea chests and the carrier which was also alleged to have been covered by the insurance policy, it can not be said that as a result of the accident damage was caused to any property of a third party. On the top of that proviso to sub-section (1) of section 110 is very clear. It gives an option to the owner to approach the civil Court for adjudication in respect of damages of property exceeding the value of Rs. 2000/-. There can not be any dispute that the value of 230 tea chests was definitely more than Rs. 2000/-. So reading both the sub-section (i) and the proviso to section 110 we are of the opinion that section 110 F of the Act is not attractive for the present purpose. 6. For the reason stated above, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court erred in law in holding that the civil Court has no jurisdiction. It has been urged that the present suit is covered by the Carriers Act, 1865. We do not want to express any opinion at this stage. In the result, appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree. We remand the suit for retrial to the learned trial Court. Parties to bear their own costs. It is needless to say that in view of above remand the defendant No. 2 may approach the learned trial Court for setting aside the exparte decree.