When the lack of jurisdiction with reference to the subject matter makes the decree a nullity, while it is not so in a case of lack of territorial jurisdiction and pecuniary jurisdiction, whether the Tribunal is justified in adopting a hyper-technical approach in dismissing the claim petition on the technical ground of want of territorial jurisdiction, especially when the legislation is benevolent and the objective is rendering social justice.

2. Viewed so, the dismissal of the claim petition is more shocking than the accident itself, when the dismissal is based on an unwarranted approach.

3. Challenging the dismissal of the claim petition, this Appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants.

4. The claim petition has been dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the claim petition. In the claim petition, the claimants' address is furnished as Minnathampatti, Kamalapuram, Thottiyam Taluk, Trichy District and the address of the second respondent-Insurance Company is mentioned as No. 30/6E First Floor, Dheen Plaza, State Bank Road, Mayiladuthurai. The Tribunal at Namakkal, giving a finding that it is not having jurisdiction to try the case and only the Tribunal at Trichy alone would have jurisdiction, dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants, which is under challenge in this Appeal.

5. The jurisdiction for the Claims Tribunal has been prescribed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads thus:-

“166. Application for compensation. -

(1) ....

[(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 whose jurisdiction the defendant resides and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed :

Provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.]

2 [***]

3

[(4) ....”

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 2009 (1) TN MAC 68 (SC) (Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Company) and 2016 (1) TN MAC 1 (SC) (Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company) and contended that there is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting party in such cases, has its business. In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party and the Claims Tribunal should not have dismissed the claim petition on the ground of jurisdiction.

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Malati Sardar vs. National Insurance Company Limited has restated its earlier position in Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2009) 2 SCC 244 regarding the territorial jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Apex Court held that there is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting party has its business.

7.1. It was a case, where a young teacher from Hoogly, died in an accident in the year 2008. The Tribunal in Kolkata, on his application awarded a compensation of Rs.16,12,200/-. The appeal preferred by the Insurance Company was allowed on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction since the deceased is not a resident of Kolkata and the accident did not take place in Kolkata.

7.2. When the mother of the deceased approached the Apex Court, the Apex Court held that in absence of prejudice, no objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction be entertained. The Apex Court stated that, the view taken by High court is contradictory to the Apex Court ruling in Mantoo Sarkar's case wherein it held that with regard to Section 21 CPC, objection of lack of territorial j