Judgment Dev Darshan Sud, J. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una. The factum of accident and quantification of the damages granted are not disputed. The Insurance Company challenges the jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal in making the award for the loss (a) ensuing from the damage to the jeep of the claimants which remained out of business for a period of five months; (b) compensation for damages caused to the jeep, which claim according to the appellant was paid to the claimants-respondents by the insurance company insuring this vehicle. 2. The learned Tribunal on the settled issues held the driver of truck No. HIB-876 responsible for the accident. The case of the claimants was that their vehicle, which was a jeep used for commercial purposes has been extensively damaged and Rs.74,377/- were spent for repair and Rs.17000 as loss of goods. The learned Tribunal held that a sum of Rs.57800/- had already been paid to the claimants for damages to the jeep by the Insurance Company with which it was insured. The learned Tribunal holds that vide Ext. PX, produced by the claimants, which is a survey report prepared by the Surveyor of the New India Assurance Company Limited, with which the jeep was insured limited the claim to Rs.57800/- and the claimants would be entitled to additional sum of Rs.16577/-. The learned Tribunal relied upon the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Ramchandra vs. Niyaz Hussain and others, 2005 ACJ 1294 as also the decision of Madras High Court in T.S.G. & company vs. Jeeva Transport Corporation Ltd. 2002 (II) ACJ 884. 3. So far as the loss to goods was concerned, the claimants would have the remedy before the civil Court. The learned Tribunal then proceeds that loss of income pleaded by the claimants for keeping the vehicle out of business is Rs.90,000/-. They were earning Rs.20,000/- from the vehicle and they suffered loss for five months and this figure was reduced to Rs.10,000/- by the learned Tribunal on the basis that it remained parked for four months as it was not capable for plying and loss of Rs.40,000/- was awarded. In all a sum of Rs.56577/- was awarded to the claim ants. It is these findings whic h h a ve now been challenged be fore me. 4. In all a sum of Rs.56577/- was awarded to the claim ants. It is these findings whic h h a ve now been challenged be fore me. 4. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. H.R.T.C. & another, Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 165this Court has held: “8. This Court considered the question as to whether the MACT has jurisdiction to award compensation on account of consequential loss suffered due to damage to property in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sh. Balwant Singh and others, FAO (MVA) No.456 of 2000 decided on 25.10.2005 and held thus: “I am unable to agree with the subsequent view of the Madras High Court. With due respect, the learned Judge has proceeded on the basis that since the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, therefore, necessarily the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal alone has jurisdiction. In my view this is like putting the cart before the horse. Section 175 of the Act only bars the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of those matters where the claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The first question which has to be decided is whether the claims Tribunals have the jurisdiction to decide the claim or not. In case the claims Tribunals have the jurisdiction then obviously the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred. To appreciate what is the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunals constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act it would be necessary to appreciate the scheme of the Act. A perusal of Section 147 quoted above clearly shows that the insurance with regard to 3rd party property is to be made only in respect of damage to any property of a 3rd party”. It is important to note that the legislature has made it necessary that the policy of insurance must cover liability in respect of damage to any property and not “damages arising out of the loss of any property”. The difference is clear and sharp. It is also pertinent to note that as per the Act, the Insurance Company is only liable for Rs.6000/-. Therefore, if there is no extended coverage taken then the Insurance Company cannot be held liable beyond that amount. The difference is clear and sharp. It is also pertinent to note that as per the Act, the Insurance Company is only liable for Rs.6000/-. Therefore, if there is no extended coverage taken then the Insurance Company cannot be held liable beyond that amount. Even in Section 165 the words used are that the State Government may constitute the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving “….damages to any property of a 3rd party so arising.” The word “damages” means compensation for loss. The damages are to be paid for the loss to the property and not for the loss arising out of the damage to the property. Initially under the provisions of the 1939 Act no claim for compensation in respect of property damage alone was maintainable. Thereafter, the Act was amended and damage to 3rd property loss could also be claimed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act but the limit of Insurance was Rs.2000/-. After the amendment in 1988 the Insurance Company is bound to cover 3rd party property damage loss upto Rs.6000/- only. Any coverage of loss beyond the amount of Rs.6000/- will have to be governed by the terms of the policy. The question which arises is whether even the owner should be made liable to pay this amount under the Motor Vehicles Act or not. In my view, the intention of the legislature was only to grant jurisdiction to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to award damages for the loss to the property. The consequential business loss could not have been assessed or awarded by the Tribunal. The loss caused due to the vehicle remaining idle is not damage to the property but a loss to the owner. In my opinion the Claims Tribunals constituted under Section 165 of the Act have no jurisdiction to entertain such claims. Section 175 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court only with respect to claims for compensation which can be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunals. The loss to the business cannot be termed to be a damage to the property and in my humble opinion is not covered under Section 165 of the Act.” (at pp.170-171) 5. In National Insurance Company vs. The Bilaspur Gramudhyog Association and others, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1418 this Court holds: “13. The loss to the business cannot be termed to be a damage to the property and in my humble opinion is not covered under Section 165 of the Act.” (at pp.170-171) 5. In National Insurance Company vs. The Bilaspur Gramudhyog Association and others, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1418 this Court holds: “13. In FAO (MVA) No. 456 of 2000 titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sh. Balwant Singh and others, decided on 25.10.2005, one of the issues for consideration before the learned Single Judge was whether petitioner in that case who was awarded Rs.30,000/- as consequential loss due to the fact that the truck remained of the road for a period of three months was entitled to that loss. The learned Single Judge has held as follows:- “Initially under the provisions of the 1939 Act no claim for compensation in respect of property damage alone were maintainable. Thereafter, the Act was amended and the damage to 3rd property loss could also be claimed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act but the limit of Insurance was Rs.2000/-. After the amendment in 1988 the Insurance Company is bound to cover 3rd party property damage loss up to Rs.6000/-only. Any coverage of loss beyond the amount of Rs.6000/- will have to be governed by the terms of the policy. In the present case the policy specifically excludes consequential loss. The Motor Vehicles Act only makes it compulsory to give insurance coverage up to Rs.6000/-. Therefore, the damages in excess of Rs.6000/-in so far as they are not covered under the terms of the policy have to be paid by the owner. The question which arises is whether even the owner should be made liable to pay this amount under the Motor Vehicles Act or not. In my view, the intention of the legislature was only to grant jurisdiction to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to award damages for the loss to the property. The consequential business loss could not have been assessed or awarded by the Tribunal. The loss caused due to the vehicle remaining idle is not damage to the property but loss to the owner. In my opinion the Claims Tribunals constituted under Section 165 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court only with respect to claims for compensation which can be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunals. The loss caused due to the vehicle remaining idle is not damage to the property but loss to the owner. In my opinion the Claims Tribunals constituted under Section 165 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of the civil court only with respect to claims for compensation which can be adjudicated upon by the Claims Tribunals. The loss to the business cannot be termed to be damage to the property and in my humble opinion is not covered under Section 165 of the Act. While taking this view I am strengthened by the fact that the Tribunals constituted under the Act are not fettered by the provisions of the Evidence Act. The Tribunal is not required to have a detailed inquiry in the matter. After the introduction of the provisions of Section 163-A in the Act the intention of the legislature is to make the mode of assessment and recovery faster and less cumbersome. This can never be done in case consequential loss is also required to be covered. The assessment of consequential loss because of its nature will entail the recording of detailed evidence and a civil Court is best suited for this purpose. It is also settled position of law that if two views are possible then the ouster of the jurisdiction of the civil court should not easily be inferred. It is only if the provisions are clear and unambiguous that the jurisdiction of the civil Court should be excluded. In the present case, I do not feel that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain disputes with regard to consequential loss arising due to damage to property can be excluded. Therefore, in my opinion the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the claims relating to consequential loss arising out of damage to the property. Its jurisdiction is confined only to the damage actually caused to the property.” 14. In view of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sh. Balwant Singh and others (supra), the petitioner is not entitled to any amount on account of loss of business due to damage to the building as a result of rolling down on the building.” (at pp1421-1422) 6. In these circumstances, I hold that the learned Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction for awarding this amount. Ltd. vs. Sh. Balwant Singh and others (supra), the petitioner is not entitled to any amount on account of loss of business due to damage to the building as a result of rolling down on the building.” (at pp1421-1422) 6. In these circumstances, I hold that the learned Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction for awarding this amount. Of course, it will open to the claim an ts to recover this amount from the owner, driver and any other person responsible for causing the damage. For the time spent in prosecuting these proceedings the claim ants would be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 7. On the other aspect as to w h ether the Tribunal was having jurisdiction for awarding claim for damages to the jeep, the Karnataka High Court in Harkhubai and other etc. vs. Jiyaram and others, 2004(1) ACJ 138 holds: “6. That leaves us with the claim in M.V.C. No. 3/1990. The Tribunal has rejected the said claim on two grounds. Firstly, because no negligence on the part of the offending vehicle is proved and secondly because the claimant-owner of the vehicle was already received from the Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured a amount representing the loss suffered by him. While the finding on the first of the said questions has been reversed by us, we see no reason to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal on the second question. It is not in dispute that the vehicle owned by the claimant in M.V.C. No. 3/1990 had suffered extensive damage on account of the collusion but it is also admitted that the vehicle being insured with one of the other Insurance Company, the damage was assessed and paid. The order passed by the Tribunal further shows that the payment was received by the claimant in full and final settlement of his claim without any reservation or demur. In the absence of any material to show that the claim paid by the other insurance company represented a part only of the total damage, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim for any further payment. We therefore see no merit in the appeal filed by the owner which shall have to be dismissed.” (at pp.141-142) 8. I find that this judgment is squarely attracted to the facts of the present case. We therefore see no merit in the appeal filed by the owner which shall have to be dismissed.” (at pp.141-142) 8. I find that this judgment is squarely attracted to the facts of the present case. The claimants cannot be allowed to recover damage caused to the jeep having recovered it without demur from the company which had insured it. This claim has been settled by the New India Assurance Company. This appeal is accordingly allowed. This judgment does not pronounce upon the civil liability of the owner, driver or any other person involved in the accident which shall be determined independently in proceeding which may be instituted by the claimants. No order as to costs.