The court determined that misapplication of territorial jurisdiction constitutes a substantial question of law, warranting appellate review and remand for further proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

S.M.Modak, J.

1. The vehicular accident took place at Vadodara – Gujarat. The office of employer is situated at Gandhidham – Gujarat. The insurance policy was issued at Ahmedabad and they are having branch office at Thane. The original Claimant was residing at Thane at the time of filing of Application (but no documents were filed). During pendency of Claim Application, he shifted to Uttar Pradesh and died there. His dependants are residing there. On these facts, learned Commissioner, Thane dismissed the Application on 9^th November 2019 for want of ‘territorial jurisdiction’. That is why, the Appeal is filed by the dependants. So, the issue involved in this Appeal is “dismissal of such Application for want of territorial jurisdiction whether can be a substantial question of law” and if yes “what can be the order”?

2. When this Appeal was admitted on 28^th March 2023, any substantial question of law was not framed. On this background, I have heard learned Advocate Shri.T.J.Mendon for the Appellants/Original Claimant Nos.1 to 3 and learned Advocate Ms.Varsha Chavan for Respondent No.2/Original Insurer. The Respondent No.1 is the employer/Insured. The Original Claimant–Rajaram Yadav was the employee of Respondent No.1. He was a driver by profession. The Respondent No.1 runs a business of transport in the name and style as “M/s.Agrawal Roadlines (P) Ltd.” They have obtained an insurance policy (Vehicle Package Policy) from the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

Pleadings

3. The deceased Rajaram was injured in an accident that took place on 2^nd January 2011 at Vadodara (Gujarat). He was driving a tanker and it turned turtle and he sustained fracture. He was paraplegic. He sought compensation for injuries. The accident took place on 2^nd January 2011 but Application was not filed in time. It was filed on 4^th September 2013.

4. The Respondent No.1/Employer filed the Written Statement. They have admitted the employment and the accident. According to them, the responsibility to pay compensation is on the Insurance Company. However, they have challenged the ‘territorial jurisdiction’ of the Court of Labour Commissioner at Thane. Whereas, the Respondent No.2 has denied everything but not challenged the ‘territorial jurisdiction’ of Thane Court.

Evidence

5. The Claimant–Rajaram Yadav gave evidence and examined three witnesses. The employer gave evidence through their Representative Mitesh S. Joshi. The Insurance Company has not given any evidence. They have restricted themselves in conducting cross-examination. Findings

6. Learned Commissioner framed four issues. All the issues are answered in favour of the Claimant except the issue of ‘territorial jurisdiction’. And that is how, the Application was dismissed as per the judgment dated 9^th November 2019 . During pendency of the Application, there was one development. The injured Rajaram expired on 28^th June 2018. His Legal Representatives were brought on record. They are nothing but the present Appellants.

7. During the arguments, Ms.Varsha Chavan supported the findings on the issue of ‘lack of territorial jurisdiction’. Whereas, according to Mr.Mendon, such objection cannot be entertained for two reasons.

They are:-

(i) Such objection was not taken while hearing the delay condonation Application.

(ii) The Insurance Company in their Written Statement has not taken this objection, and hence, they have waived it.

According to Mr.Mendon, the findings on the aspect of ‘territorial jurisdiction’ are erroneous. During their oral arguments, they have elaborated