Manoj Ashok Karigar vs Siddappa Ramappa Lolasure and Others

L. Narayana Swamy, J.—Appellants submit that the claim petitions came to be filed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum in MVC No. 804.2011 and in MVC No. 1971 of 2010 and the same came to be made over to the V Additional District Judge and VI Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal CMACT'' for short), Belgaum. By its order dated 8th November 2013 in MVC No. 804 of 2011 and by order dated 30th October 2013 in MVC No. 1971 of 2010, the V Additional District Judge and VI MACT, Belgaum returned the file to the petitioner to re-submit to the jurisdictional court and for the purpose of same, reason assigned was that "by looking into the place of accident, it comes within the jurisdiction of Additional MACT, Hukkeri and hence, the claimant has to approach the said Tribunal". In order to return the file, the learned Judge has examined the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, more particularly, Section 166(2) of the Act and the judgment of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Premakka and Others, .

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the claim petition has to be made before the MACT of the District having jurisdiction and the Principal District Judge, who is the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, makes over the case to the Additional MACT, depending upon the jurisdiction of the case and in the instant case, it is made over to V Additional District Judge and VI MACT, Belgaum. The Court, to which the case is made over, has to decide the case on merits. Once it is transferred, the transferee Court has no jurisdiction and power to return the file. At the most it can send it back to Principal District and Sessions Judge to pass appropriate orders instead of returning the file by assigning reasons to prefer claim petition before the appropriate MACT. In the present case, the returning of the file by assigning reason to prefer claim petition before the MACT at Hukkeri is an error and unsustainable in the eye of law.

Both the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent-Insurance Companies submit that under Section 166(2) of the Act, the claim petition has to be made before the MACT constituted for the said purpose and when the Tribunals have been constituted throughout District and Taluk, the appropriate Tribunal having jurisdiction is the competent court for the purpose of adjudication.

The learned counsel Sri R.R. Mane, who assisted the court in this regard submitted that it is also the practice that claim petition has to be filed before the Principal District Judge and it is only the District MACT, in turn, depending upon the jurisdiction and allotment of work, has to make over the claim petitions to the respective Tribunals.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and Shri R.R. Mane. Section 166(2) of the Act states that every application under sub-section (1) shall be made at the option of claimants to the MACT having jurisdiction over the area within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on his business, etc. The plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 166 of the Act is that the claim petition has to be presented before the MACT constituted for the said purpose having territorial jurisdiction/the area of civil jurisdiction exercised by judges. The place of accident, place of residence of the claimant and the office of the respondent are the instances in which the claim petition could be filed. Under Section 165 of the Act the State Government has issued notification in the official gazette and to constitute one or more Motor Accident Claims Tribunals for such areas as are being specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudication upon the claims for compensation. Depending upon the requirements and on the recommendation of the High Court, Government has to issue notification constituting Tribunals for compliance of Section 165 of the Act. Accordingly, Government has issued notification on 30th March 1995 on the recommendations of the High Court of Karnataka in partial modification of the previous orders. For the purpose of convenience, the Government Notification is extracted hereinbelow:

"GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

No. HTD 2 TMR 92

Karnataka Government Secretariat M.S. Building Bangalore, dated 30.3.1995

NOTIFICATION

In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 195 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the Government of Karnataka on the modification of all previous orders appointing members to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal appoints:--

a. The Principal District and Sessions Judges as members of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals at the respective District Headquarters;

b. The Additional District Judges of the Districts as a members of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals;

c. All the Civil Judges as members of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

To facilitate proper and effective supervision over the functioning of the additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals it is hereby stipulated that:--

(a) Every claim petition shall be instituted in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals constituted and the District Headquarters presided over by the Principal District and Sessions Judge.

(b) The Claims shall be transferred to the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals constituted as above, by the Principal District and Sessions Judges of the Districts depending upon the area of Civil Jurisdiction exercised by the Judges and as otherwise deemed prudent in the interest of speedy disposal of such claims.

BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA SD/- (A. CHINNAPPA) Under Secretary to Government Home and Transport Department (Transport)"

It is stated in the Notification that the Principal District and Sessions Judge as Member of MACT at the respective district headquarter and Additional District Judges as Members of the additional Tribunals. It further clarifies that for effective supervision over the functioning of the Additional MACT, it is made available that every claim petition shall be instituted in the MACT constituted at the district headquarters shall be presided over by the Principal District and Sessions Judge. As per this provision it goes without saying that every claim petition has to be filed before the MACT of the district having jurisdiction and in turn the Principal District Judge has to make over or transfer the claim petition to the additional MACT constituted by the said notification, depending upon the area of civil jurisdiction exercised by the Judges. The notification clarifies that the claim petition has to be filed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge of the respective Districts who have got jurisdiction, and the Principal District and Sessions Judges, in turn, have to make over or transfer the case to the respective additional MACTs which are headed by Civil Judges as its Members. In the light of the notification, the Notification clarifies the position that the claim petitions are to be made before the Principal District and Sessions Judge and the same is to be transferred to the additional MACTs. Since the notification does not permit to file claim petition before the additional MACT directly, all claim petitions have to be made before the Principal District and Sessions Judge.

When the cases are made over to the additional MACTs, the Civil Judge who is presiding over the additional MACT has to decide the case accordingly. In case, if it is found that the jurisdiction has not been clarified by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, then the additional MACT has to correspond with the District Judge and the case cannot be returned as is done in the instant case. The question of jurisdiction, in case, if raised by the respondent or suo motu by the Judge, the same has to be done at the first instance itself and not at the fag end of the case. The aim of the Motor Vehicles Act is to pay compensation to the accident victims or to the dependents of the victims at the earliest. In case, the question of jurisdiction is not raised by either of the parties or by the Court, the claims petition shall be transferred to the Additional MACT by the Principal District Judge depending upon the area of the civil jurisdiction exercised by the Judge and, as otherwise deemed prudent, in the interest of speedy disposal of such claim petitions. The words referred "as otherwise deemed prudent" is to be taken in right spirit that the Tribunals have to assume its duty to dispose of the claim petition at the earliest in the best interest of the victims. When that is the clarification made in the Notification, the Tribunal, in which the claim petition is pending for years, have to decide the case at the earliest and if any objection with regard to jurisdiction is raised, that has to be dealt with in the light of the notification.

The ambiguity with regard to territorial jurisdiction has been clarified by this Court in the case of SMT. PREMAKKA (supra). The accident has taken place in the Belgaum District and hence the claim petition has to be filed before Principal District and Sessions Judge at Belgaum only and not before other Tribunals, unless it is proved that the ingredients under Section 166 of the Act is not adhered to. Instead of going further whether the accident has taken place in the same district or not, the notification clearly clarifies the position that all the claim petitions have to be filed before the MACT headed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and thereafter the cases have to be made over to the additional MACTs having civil jurisdiction. Even when the claim petition is pending for years together and at the fag end that too when the case is about to be disposed of, if the objection of jurisdiction is raised, then it has to be considered in the light of the notification, viz. "as otherwise deemed prudent" in the interest of speedy disposal of such claim petition.

In the instant case the accident has taken place at Hidkal Dam, Ingali Road, Ingali, which comes within the jurisdiction of Sankeshwar Taluk for which the MACT is having jurisdiction and accordingly, the case has been filed before the said Tribunal which was made over to V Additional District Judge and VI MACT Belgaum. Accordingly, the said Court alone has to decide the matter and it is not proper to return the claim petition. If at all the court feels that the case does not come within its jurisdiction, the Additional MACT has to get it clarified by the Principal District Judge and it shall not be returned to the parties.

The accident is of the year 2010; Claim petition is filed in the year 2011; and the order has been passed in the year 2013. The Additional MACT should not have returned the file. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that now the case is posted for arguments. Under the circumstance, the impugned order is to be set aside, accordingly it is set aside and the appeal is restored to file. The learned Judge is directed to proceed further from the stage when the case was returned. Appeals are accordingly disposed of. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 26th November 2015 without awaiting any notice in that regard.