A mistake by a lawyer cannot work to the detriment of the client, and the provision for territorial jurisdiction should be interpreted consistent with facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

CM APPL. 3497/2021 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

CM (M) 81/2021

3. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 1st February 2020, passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South District, Saket Courts (hereinafter, MACT ), vide which the application of the Petitioner, for restoration of the claim petition before the MACT has been dismissed.

4. The brief background is that the mother of the Petitioner met with an accident while she was travelling by a bus in Uttar Pradesh. The Petitioner then filed the claim petition before the Presiding Officer, MACT on 19th March, 2016. The Respondents filed their written statements before the MACT in which they took the plea that the insurance company i.e. Respondent No.3 - United Indian Insurance Company Limited, is liable to pay the compensation.

5. The insurance company objected to the jurisdiction of the MACT in Saket Courts, New Delhi. An application was filed raising the issue of maintainability, by the insurance company to which a reply was also placed on record on 25th April, 2018. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner, however, withdrew the said petition under the impression that the MACT in Delhi would not have jurisdiction to hear the claim petition.

6. Thereafter, the Petitioner is stated to have been advised to file an application for restoration, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Ltd., 2016 3 SCC 43. However, vide the impugned order, the MACT has refused to restore the claim petition of the Petitioner. Hence, the present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon a similar case, in which this Court had taken a view that in view of the judgment in Malati Sardar (supra), there is no bar in filing a claim petition in the jurisdiction where the insurance company is carrying on its business. He submits that a similar order may be passed in the present case.

8. Mr. Seth, ld. Counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that once the lawyer has withdrawn the petition, there is always an option to file a fresh petition before the appropriate jurisdiction.

9. Heard ld, Counsels for the parties. This Court has perused the impugned order dated 1st February, 2020. It is clear from the perusal of the initial petition and reply qua non-maintainability, that the Petitioner had contended that the Court in Saket would have jurisdiction. Thus, the reasons of withdrawal are not clear, which appears to have been done due to legal advice given to the Petitioner.

10. It is a settled position in law that a litigant cannot be made to suffer due to the mistake of a lawyer. In Malati Sadar (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:

"14. 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 the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hyper technical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated. There is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company, which is the 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."

11. In CM(M) 93/2021 titled Savitri and Ors. v. Keshav Singh & Ors., this Court had dealt with the similar issue where the written statement had already been filed and the counsel thereafter, under the impression that the MACT would not have jurisdiction, prayed for withdrawal of claim petition. In the said petition, this Court vide order dated 4th February, 2021 has observed as under:

"8. Thus, the clear legal position is that the claims against the insuran