2024 Supreme(SC) 406

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Balveer Batra – Appellant
Versus
The New India Assurance Company and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1842 of 2024, Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 396 of 2019
Decided On : 08-02-2024

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Territorial jurisdiction of Court – Lack of territorial jurisdiction by itself is not recognized under it as a reason to make a judgment/decree a nullity – It is quite different and distinct from inherent lack of jurisdiction which would strike at very authority of Court to try a case and pass a judgment/decree and would make it a nullity.
(2) Claim application – If more than one Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute it will be open to party concerned to choose one of competent Courts to decide his dispute.

Headnote:

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 21 – Territorial jurisdiction of Court – Lack of territorial jurisdiction by itself is not recognized under it as a reason to make a judgment/decree a nullity – It is quite different and distinct from inherent lack of jurisdiction which would strike at very authority of Court to try a case and pass a judgment/decree and would make it a nullity – Though taking of objection as to lack of territorial jurisdiction before Court of first instance at the earliest opportunity is a condition required to raise that objection before an appellate or revisional Court satisfaction of such condition by itself would not make an award granting compensation a nullity – Objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction in an appeal against an award granting compensation could not be entertained in absence of consequent failure of justice. (Paras 13 and 14)

(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166(2) – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 21 – Claim application – Territorial jurisdiction of Tribunal – If more than one Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute it will be open to party concerned to choose one of competent Courts to decide his dispute – Merely because claimant made application for compensation not to Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which accident occurred or not to Claims Tribunal within local limits of whose jurisdiction he resides or carries on business, is no reason to dismiss application provided it is filed before a Claims Tribunal where it is otherwise maintainable – Since provisions for grant of compensation under Section 166 is one of benevolence if an illegality resulting in failure of justice is discernable from materials on record, even if in respect of which no specific pleading is taken, Court is bound to take it into consideration – Hyper technical approach in such matters could hardly be appreciated and there would be no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where insurance company, which is main contesting party in such cases, has its business – Failure of justice caused to applicant in case on hand, is evident from very award of Claims Tribunal though it escaped attention of High Court – Impugned award set aside and claim petition restored to file of Tribunal. (Paras 17, 21, 22, 23 and 32)

(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XIV Rule 2 – Court to pronounce judgment on all issues – When it is evident that issue could not be decided solely based on pleadings in plaint (here claim petition) and when parties are permitted to adduce evidence upon finding that it is a mixed question of law and facts there was absolutely no justification for not pronouncing an award on all issues framed besides one pertaining to its territorial jurisdiction – Since Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165, M.V. Act even when lacking territorial jurisdiction cannot be said to be lacking jurisdiction on the subject matter in a claim petition and award would not be a nullity, findings on other issues would be binding on parties. (Para 28)

Facts of the case:

Appellant is father of victim of a motor vehicle accident. His son, the victim, met with unfortunate accident causing his death. Tribunal dismissed claim application for lack of territorial jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the same, appellant herein preferred an appeal before High Court and the same also met with the same fate. Hence, this appeal.

Findings of Court:

To enable Tribunal to proceed further and to decide claim petition on merits, MACP No. 137/2006 is restored into its file and in view of long lapse of time there will be a further direction that Tribunal shall conclude entire exercise after permitting parties to adduce further evidence, if any, within a period of six months from date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Result : Appeal disposed of.