IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act can be filed in jurisdictions where the insurer has a business presence, promoting access to justice for claimants.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Insurance Company’ for brevity) has filed these three writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the common order dated 21.04.2023 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Motor Accident Claim Case Nos. 460/2022, 461/2022 and 462/2022 whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected three separate applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed in each claim case on behalf of petitioner Insurance Company for dismissing the claim petitions on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the learned tribunal to try the claim cases.

2. Since in all these three writ petitions, a common order dated 21.04.2023 is impugned, the same are being decided by this common order.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.02.2020, three ladies namely Manju Devi, Parmeshwari @ Mesri and Draupadi were going to their agricultural fields from their respective homes and when they reached Neherrohi Dhani, Pallu, District Hanumangarh, a tractor No. RJ 49 RA 1559 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit them and as a result of which, all the three ladies fell in canal and succumbed to injuries. In February, 2020, the dependents of these three deceased ladies filed three separate claim cases under Section 166/140/149 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Special Judge, Printing & Stationary Embezzlement & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur claiming compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was insured with the petitioner Insurance Company. After filing claim petitions, in July, 2021, written submissions were filed on behalf of the petitioner Insurance Company and same are annexed herewith as Annexure-3. Thereafter, in September, 2021, issues were framed in all the three claim cases. Presently, these cases are pending for recording defence evidence.

4. On 23.05.2022, the petitioner Insurance Company filed three separate applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in each claim case for rejecting the claim petitions on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the learned MACT, Jaipur District to try these cases. The claimants/respondents filed their reply to the applications and denied the averments made therein. Vide impugned order dated 21.04.2023, the learned Tribunal dismissed the applications in light of the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malti Sardar v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 43. Hence these writ petitions.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in dismissing the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and therefore, the order dated 21.04.2023 may be quashed and claim petitions may be rejected. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has misinterpreted the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malti Sardar (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned Tribunal at Jaipur has no territorial jurisdiction to try these claim petitions as same is in contravention of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. He submits that the claimant and defendant resides in Hanumangarh and so also the accident occurred in Hanumangarh. The Registered Head Office of the Company is situated in Kolkata and therefore, the learned Tribunal at Jaipur has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions. Learned counsel also contends that while interpreting any rule or law, literal rule of interpretation should be applied if the words of a provision of a statute are clear and unambiguous. Referring Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, learned counsel submits that in the matters filed under Consumer Protection Act, jurisdiction may be assumed through the branch office of Insurance Company, which is categorically omitted by Legislature