Smt. Tiharo Bai and Another vs Maksud Agmad and Another

I.M. Quddusi, J.—Heard. The appellant-claimants have filed this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'') against the impugned order dated 26.03.2001 passed in Claim Case No. 70/209 whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short ''the Claims Tribunal'') has dismissed the claim application of the appellants.

Facts of the case, in brief, according to the version of claimants are that on 24.05.2009 deceased Ramdeo Ram alongwith his wife Tiharo Bai (Claimant/Appellant No. 1) had gone to the place of their relatives Raja Katel and Raj Prasad Uroon. When Ram Deo alongwith his wife was returning by his Motorcycle bearing Regn. no. C.G. 15/ CC-5951, at about 13.30 hours, a Truck bearing registration No. U.P. 70 A.T./5545 which was being driven by non-applicants Maksud Agmad in a rash and negligent manner deshed the motorcycle from opposite direction, due to which, Ramdeo sustained grievous injuries on his head, legs, hand and other parts of the body. His also sustained injuries in the said accident. Ram Deo was immediately brought to the District Hospital, Ambikapur, District Sarguja where during the course of treatment he died on the same day at about 4.25 p.m.

The deceased was aged about 40 years. He was working as General Majdoor in Sourth Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Bhatgoon, Vishrampur, District Sarguja and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 25,000/- per month.

The Claimants being dependents/legal representatives of the deceased have filed claim application u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the award of total compensation of Rs. 70,60,000/- on various heads.

The Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition only on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the Claims Tribunal.

A Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal shows that though the Tribunal has not framed any issue regarding jurisdiction but dismissed the claim petition only on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction holding that the appellants have not filed any documentary evidence regarding their residence.

From the description given in the cause title of claim application, it is evident that the appellants-claimants have given their particulars along-with address as under:

Tihora Bai wife of late Ramdeo Ram aged about 37 years

Parvtiya, wife of late Chamru Ram, aged about 65 years.

Pradeep Lakda, son of late Ramdeo Ram, aged about 17 years.

Arvind Lakda, son of late Ramdeo Ram, aged about 15 years,

Respondents 3 & 4 are represented through mother and natural guardian Smt. Tihora Bai, w/o late Ramdeo Ram, All residents of village Bakmar, Tahsil Ambikapur, Districts Sarguja (C.G.), presently residing at village S.E. 245, C.S.E.B. Colony, Korba (East) Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.)

The details of respondents 1 (driver), respondent no. 2 (owner) and respondent no. 3 (insurer) is also furnished in the cause title of the claim petition as under:

Maksud Agmad, son of Hanif Agmad, aged 30 years, resident of Rudapur, Malkahar, Dist. Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh (Vehicle Driver)

Sebi Ahmad, son of Asfaque Agmad, resident of Rudapur, Malkahar, District Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh (Owner)

Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Geetanjali Bhawan, Purana Busstand, Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.)

Section 166 (2) of the Act, 1988 reads as under: -

Application for compensation -

(2) Every application under Sub-section (1) shall be made, at that option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or caries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

The said Act is a special stature. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal having regard to the terminologies used therein must be held to be wider than the civil court. A bare reading of the above provisions would show that in has nowhere mentioned that the claim petition should be filed only before the Claims Tribunal having the jurisdiction over the area in which the accident took place. Options are open to the claimants (s) to file application either before the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or caries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant (the Insurance Company or the owner & driver, as the case may be) resides or before the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident took place. The words ''resides'' and ''carries on the business'' denote that at the time of filing claim petition before the Claims Tribunal the claimant should be the resident of an area falling within its local jurisdiction. In other words, the expression ''resides'' denotes the present address and not the post address of the claimant. Thus, in our opinion, dismissal of the claim petition by the Claims Tribunal on the ground of lock of territorial jurisdiction is not proper.

A claimant has wide option. Residence of the claimant also determines jurisdiction of the Tribunal. What would be a residence of a person would, however, depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, wherein it has been held in Paragraphs 16, 17 & 20 as under:

We say so because ordinarily an appellate court shall not, having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, entertain an appeal on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the court below unless he has been prejudiced thereby. Other respondents did not raise any question of jurisdiction, although one witness each has been examined on behalf of the truck owner and owner of the bus, neither a question of lock of territorial jurisdiction was raised nor the question of any prejudice had been argued. It is only the first respondent who raised the question of territorial jurisdiction. However, no prejudice was caused to the appellant by the claim petition being tried by MACT at Nainital.

The liability of the Insurance Company arises for the purpose of reimbursement of the amount of compensation found to be payable by the owner of the vehicle insured. It is only in exceptional cases and as provided for u/s 170 of the Act, the Insurance Company can defend a claim petition. Only on limited grounds it may be permitted to question the quantum of compensation.

A distinction, however, must be made between a jurisdiction with regard to the subject matter of the suit and that of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. Whereas in the case falling within the former category the judgment would be a nullity, in the latter it would not be. It is not a case where the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in relation to the subject matter of claim. As a matter of fact the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. If the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, in our opinion, the Court should not have, in the absence of any finding of sufferance of any prejudice on the part of the first respondent, entertained the appeal.

In view of the above discussion, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 26.03.2011 and remit the matter back to the Claims Tribunal for deciding the claim petition afresh on merits. The parties shall be entitled to amend the pleadings or file documents or verify the documents already filed.

The Claims Tribunal is expected to decide the matter as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal concerned on 05th January, 2012. The Registry is directed to send back the records of the Tribunal without further delay. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs.