The presence of a branch office within the Tribunal's jurisdiction suffices for jurisdictional purposes, and procedural objections regarding jurisdiction must be raised promptly.

JUDGMENT :

S. Sounthar, J.

This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimants on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.

2. It is the case of the claimants that the wife of the first claimant and mother of the claimants 2 to 5 namely Ram @ Ramammal @ Ramiyammal died in a road accident involving a bus belonging to the respondents 2 and 3 on 20.01.2013. It was the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was travelling in a bus belonging to the second respondent Corporation from Palladam to Dharapuram Road.

The driver of the first respondent corporation had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner, without following the traffic rules, as a result of which, the deceased had fallen down from the bus and sustained injuries. Though she was taken to hospital, she succumbed to injuries latter. Hence, the claimants have filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

3. It is not in dispute that the bus belonging to the Corporation was attached to the Coimbatore depot of the second respondent. The claimants are residing at Poovarasampatti, Kinnimangalam, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. The driver of the second respondent bus is residing at Varatharajapuram, Kothapatti, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District. Therefore, it is clear that neither the claimants nor the respondents 1 and 2 are residing/functioning, within the territorial limits of the Tribunal at Bhavani. However, the branch of the second respondent Corporation is available at Karattupalayam, Anthiyur, Anthiyur Taluk, well within the territorial limits of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Erode District at Bhavani. Therefore, the third respondent/ General Manager of the Anthiyur Depot of second respondent Corporation was made as a party respondent before the Tribunal.

4. Though the second respondent filed counter denying the negligence on the part of the driver, no objection was raised by the second respondent with reference to the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

5. After filing counter by the second respondent, the respondents 2 and 3 remained exparte and failed to participate in the enquiry. The claimants were allowed to give evidence and accordingly, on the side of the claimants, the claimants 4 and 5 were examined as PW1 and PW2 and seven documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.

6. The Tribunal on its own considered the question of territorial jurisdiction and dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. It is observed by Tribunal that neither the claimants nor the respondents 1 and 2 have been residing /functioning within the territorial limits of Bhavani Court. It is also observed that the third respondent was added as party, without any cause of action against it and hence, it was unnecessary party to the claim petition. When the claimants and the respondents 1 and 2 are not having residence /office within the territorial limits of the court concerned and taking into consideration the fact that the accident had also occurred outside the territorial limits of the Bhavani Court, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the second respondent Corporation is having branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of Bhavani Court and therefore, it can be treated as carrying on business, within the territorial limits of the Bhavani Court. To substantiate his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on the following judgments.

i) Malati Sardar Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 43

ii) Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 244

iii) Balveer Batra Vs. New India Assu