Back
2013 Supreme(Cal) 856
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Mrinal Kanti Sinha, Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, JJ.
Nirmala Devi Agarwal And Others – Appellants
Vs.
Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. And Another – Respondents
F.M.A.T. No. 1038 of 2002
Decided On : 25-03-2013
For the Appellants : Aniruddha Chatterjee and Biswajit Konar
For the Respondents: Parimal Kumar Pahari
The territorial jurisdiction of a Tribunal to entertain a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is determined by the provisions of Section 166(2), which provides three options for choosing the Tribunal: (i) where the accident occurred, (ii) where the claimant resides or carries on business, or (iii) where the defendant resides.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 166(2) - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - CLAIM PETITION - INSURANCE COMPANY'S REGIONAL OFFICE - SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL TO ENTERTAIN CLAIM PETITIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, where neither the claimants resided nor carried on business, nor the accident occurred, nor the policy-issuing office of the insurance company was situated. The insurance company's regional office was within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court.
Finding of the Court:
The City Civil Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition as neither the accident occurred within its jurisdiction, nor any of the claimants resided and/or carried on business within its jurisdiction, nor the defendant resided within its jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the City Civil Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition? 2. Whether the business address of the insurance company could be considered for determining the jurisdiction of the Tribunal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides three options for choosing the Tribunal where a claim petition can be filed: (i) where the accident occurred, (ii) where the claimant resides or carries on business, or (iii) where the defendant resides. 2. The Court held that the City Civil Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as none of the conditions under Section 166(2) were satisfied. 3. The Court interpreted the third option under Section 166(2) and held that the business address of the defendant is not a relevant criterion for selecting the Tribunal. 4. The Court further held that the reference to the business address of the defendant in the third option is not an inclusive provision that includes 'carries on business' as the insurance company, being a juristic person, cannot reside but can carry on business at its business place.
Final Decision: The Court modified the impugned order by setting aside the part where the claim petition was rejected and directing the Tribunal to return the claim petition to the claimants, who could then present it to the Claims Tribunal at Howrah, where they resided.
1. The claimants are the appellants before this Court. The claimants filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The owner of the offending vehicle did not appear in the said proceedings in spite of service of summons, upon him. The insurance company appears in the said proceeding and filed written statement therein, challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the said claim petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. Though, several issues were framed by the Learned Tribunal in the said proceeding but the Issue regarding the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the said claim petition was ultimately taken up by the Learned Tribunal as a preliminary Issue and the said issue was decided by the Learned Tribunal in favour of the insurance company. The Learned Tribunal held that the said Tribunal lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said claim petition and such claim petition was rejected, but at the same time, the Learned Tribunal observed that the claim petition was to be returned to the petitioners on filing of the necessary application under Order 7 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The legality and/or propriety of the said impugned order of the learned Tribunal passed on July 09, 2012 in MJC Case No. 897 of 2008 is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the claimants.
3. Let us now consider as to how far, the Learned Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case.
4. For proper appreciation of the legality of the impugned order, certain basic facts which are required to be taken note of, are set out hereunder:--
(iii) The claimants reside at Premises No. 126, Salkia School Road. Swapanalok Building, Flat No. 408. Howrah-711106 of Block-B which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Howrah.
(ii) The accident look place on Karman Border at Hodal in the State of Harayana.
(iii) The address of the owner of the offending vehicle as disclosed in the claim petition is at House No.-105, Sector --29, Housing Board Colony, Faridabad, which is also within the State of Harayana.
(iv) The insurance policy was issued by the branch office of the concerned insurance company, which is also situated at Faridabad within the State of Harayana. The regional office of the insurance company situates at J.K. Millenium tower, 3rd Floor, 4h/D, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700071. This address of the regional office of the insurance company was disclosed in the claim petition. However, in the memorandum of appeal the present address of the insurance company was mentioned as 15, Park Street, (Appejay House), 7th Floor, Kolkatta - 700016.
5. These basic facts are necessary for the present purpose. The instant claim petition was filed in City Civil Court at Calcutta where neither the claimants reside, nor they carry on business, nor the accident occurred, nor the policy issuing office of the Insurance company situates within the jurisdiction of City Civil Court at Calcutta, nor the owner of the offending vehicle resides within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta.
6. However, the regional office of the Insurance company situates within the territorial jurisdiction of City Civil Court at Calcutta. Now we will have to examine in the facts of the instant case as to whether the City Civil Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said claim petition or not.
7. The jurisdiction of the claim Tribunal to entertain any claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, is dealt with in Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said Provision runs as follows:
Section 166(2): Every application under sub-section 1 shall be made, at the 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 carries on business or within the local limits of
