Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
MALATI SARDAR – PETITIONER
VERSUS
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.27243 OF 2015)
Decided on : 05-01-2016
(2009) 2 SCC 244 ; AIR 1954 SC 340 – Relied.
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166(2) – Territorial jurisdiction of Tribunal to entertain claim application – There is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where insurance company which is main contesting parties in such cases, has its business – In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party – There is no failure of justice – High Court was not justified in setting aside award of Tribunal in absence of any failure of justice even if there was merit in plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction – Judgment of High Court set aside and award of Tribunal restored. (Paras 12, 14 and 15)
(2014) 7 SCC 303 ; (2013) 10 SCC 136 – Distinguished.
Facts of Case:
Deceased aged 26 years, a school teacher, unmarried son of appellant was hit by Bus insured with respondent company at Hoogly, in State of West Bengal and died. He was travelling on motor cycle of his colleague. Rash and negligent driving by driver of bus having been established, Tribunal, applying multiplier of 13 on account of age of the appellant being 47 years, and taking into account income of deceased and other relevant factors, fixed compensation of Rs.16,12,200/-with 6% interest. High Court upheld objection of respondent and allowed appeal of respondent company and directed refund of amount deposited/paid to respondent company.
Findings of Court:
In face of judgment of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar. High Court was not justified in setting aside award of Tribunal in absence of any failure of justice even if there was merit in plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, fact remained that insurance company which was main contesting respondent had its business at Kolkata.
The provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with object of facilitating remedies for victims of accidents. Hyper technical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated.
Result – Appeal allowed. Judgment of High Court set aside and award of Tribunal restored.
Key Points: - The Tribunal's territorial jurisdiction under Section 166(2) can be based on where the accident occurred or where the claimant resides or carries on business, or where the defendant resides, allowing flexibility to facilitate remedies (!) . - A lack of prejudice or failure of justice can prevent appellate intervention against a Tribunal’s territorial jurisdiction; hyper-technical refusals are discouraged, as per Mantoo Sarkar principles (!) , (!) , (!) . - The decision reinforces that Section 21 CPC doctrine (no objection to place of suing unless there is failure of justice) applies to territorial jurisdiction in motor accident claims, and that tribunals have broader jurisdiction than civil courts (!) , (!) . - In the specific case, the Kolkata Tribunal had jurisdiction despite the accident occurring in Hooghly because the insurance company had business/residence connections within Kolkata, aligning with Mantoo Sarkar and related precedents (!) , (!) , (!) , (!) . - The High Court’s reason to set aside the Tribunal’s award solely on lack of territorial jurisdiction was found inappropriate; appeal allowed and Tribunal’s award restored (!) .
Judgment :
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.
1. Leave granted. The question raised in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kolkata only on the ground that the Tribunal did not have the territorial jurisdiction.
2. On 7th May, 2008, the deceased Diganta Sardar, aged 26 years, a school teacher, unmarried son of the appellant was hit by Bus No.WB/15-A-4959 insured with the respondent company at Hoogly, in the State of West Bengal and died. He was travelling on motor cycle of his colleague, Uttam Samui as a pillion rider. The appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act”) for compensation before the Tribunal at Kolkata.
3. Rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus having been established, the Tribunal, applying the multiplier of 13 on account of age of the appellant being 47 years, and taking into account the income of the deceased and other relevant factors, fixed compensation of Rs.16,12,200/-with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition vide its Award dated 7th February, 2012.
4. The respondent company preferred an appeal before the High Court on the only ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The objection of the respondent was that the accident took place at Hoogly and the claimant resided at Hoogly. Office of the respondent being at Kolkata did not attract jurisdiction of the Kolkata Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Union of India vs. G.S. Grewal, (2014) 7 SCC 303 and Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana, (2013) 10 SCC 136 apart from the High Court judgments. The appellant supported the award by placing reliance on judgment of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2009) 2 SCC 244 apart from other judgments.
5. The High Court upheld the objection of the respondent and allowed the appeal of the respondent company and directed refund of the amount deposited/paid, if any, to the respondent company. It was observed :-
“In the instant case admittedly the accident took place in Hooghly. The claimant, as evident from the cause title, resides at Hoogly. The owner, the respondent, too resides at Hooghly. Hooghly, no doubt, is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Kolkata. The argument of the respondent-claimant that the Kolkata Tribunal exercises jurisdiction since the regional office of the insurance company is situated within its territorial limits cannot be accepted as the last option under section 166(2) cannot be construed to mean the residential address of the company as a company can have a business or an office address and not a residential address. Therefore, the Tribunal at Kolkata had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. In this regard we follow the principles of law laid down in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Kustiswar Pramanik (supra) [2010(1) T.A.C. 405 (Cal), in Nirmala Devi Agarwal (supra) [2013 (3) CLJ (Cal)] and in the unreported judgment delivered on 18th July, 2012 in FMA 724 of 2008 with C.O.T. 22 of 2008 (The New Indian Assurance Col. Ltd. vs. Silpi Dutta & Ors.) and we respectfully disagree with the judgment in FMA 1454 of 2013 (National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Alpana Jana & Ors.)”.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court was in grave error in holding that the Kolkata Tribunal could not exercise jurisdiction on the ground that registered office of the insurance company was within its territorial limits. Jurisdiction was available under Section 166(2) if the defendant/respondent in a claim petition was residing within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The residence in the case of juristic person included its Principal office. In any case, the view taken by the High Court is directly in conflict with the law laid down by this Court in Mantoo Sark
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
