Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Bina Garg & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Sushil Kumar & Ors. - Respondents
FAO No.2161 of 2009 (O&M)
Decided On : 11-05-2020
Jurisdiction - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - [166] - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Tribunal based on the claimant's residence, place of business, and the location of the accident. It referenced the provisions of Section 166 and highlighted the benevolent nature of the Motor Vehicles Act in favor of accident victims. The court emphasized that a hyper-technical approach should be avoided in such matters and remanded the case for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of jurisdiction as the accident did not occur in Chandigarh, and the claimants were not residing in Chandigarh. The claimants appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in returning the petition mainly on the ground of jurisdiction and emphasized the benevolent nature of the Motor Vehicles Act in favor of accident victims. It set aside the award passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the claim petition based on the location of the accident and the claimants' residence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a hyper-technical approach should be avoided in matters related to the Motor Vehicles Act and that there should be no prejudice caused to any party. It cited relevant case law to support its decision.
Final Decision: The award passed by the Tribunal was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration within a period of six months.
Key Points from the Legal Document:
The Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent legislation that aims to protect accident victims, and a hyper-technical approach in such cases should be avoided (!) (!) .
Jurisdiction for filing a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act can be established based on the location of the accident, the residence or place of business of the claimant, or where the defendant resides (!) (!) .
The primary issue in the case was whether the tribunal had territorial jurisdiction, given that the accident did not occur in Chandigarh and the claimants did not reside there at the time of filing (!) (!) .
Evidence such as a ration card indicating residence in Chandigarh was presented to establish jurisdiction, but the tribunal initially dismissed the claim on jurisdictional grounds (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized that objections to jurisdiction are generally considered technical and should not be grounds for dismissing a claim unless prejudice or failure of justice is demonstrated (!) (!) .
A decree or order passed without proper jurisdiction is considered null and void, but distinctions exist between jurisdiction over the subject matter and territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction; only the former renders a judgment invalid (!) (!) .
The courts highlighted that in the absence of prejudice to the opposing party, a tribunal's lack of jurisdiction does not automatically nullify proceedings, especially when the tribunal had jurisdiction over the subject matter (!) (!) .
The case was remanded for fresh consideration, with a directive to decide the matter within a specified period, emphasizing the importance of resolving claims fairly without undue technicality (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal approach favors a broad interpretation of jurisdictional provisions to ensure access to justice, and technical objections should not hinder rightful claims unless they cause prejudice or injustice (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
Alka Sarin, J. - The present appeal has been filed by the claimants against the award dated 29.10.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh.
2. The short point in the present case is that the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of jurisdiction. The claimants are in appeal aggrieved by the said award. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the son of the claimants, namely, Pranav Vishal Garg, had died in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 14.09.2004 at about 10.50 A.M. On the date of the accident, Pranav Vishal Garg and his friend Amrit Thapa were going on separate motorcycles. Pranav Vishal Garg was going ahead of Amrit Thapa, who was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-02A-3775. When Pranav Vishal Garg took a turn, the offending vehicle bearing registration No.UP-14D-0475 came from the side of Dadri in a rash and negligent manner and hit his motorcycle from the back thereby crushing him and his motorcycle. Pranav Vishal Garg died on the spot. FIR No.18/2004 dated 14.09.2004 was recorded on the statement of Amrit Thapa.
3. The claim petition was contested by the respondents on the ground that the Tribunal did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition as the cause of action had not occurred at Chandigarh. Neither the accident took place in Chandigarh nor the claimants were residing in Chandigarh. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on the record, the Tribunal returned the finding that the Tribunal at Chandigarh did not have jurisdiction to try the petition and returned the same for presentation before the proper court in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the same, the present appellants have approached this Court.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that appellant No.2 Prem Sagar Garg had stepped into the witness box and had stated that he was a resident of Chandigarh and that the Food & Supplies Department, Chandigarh had also issued them a ration card to this effect, a copy of which was produced on the record as Ex.P3. A perusal of Ex.P3 clearly reveals that the names of both the appellants are mentioned in the said ration card, which was produced on the record by the appellants herein. It has further been submitted that though the ration card was made in the year 2007 yet the Tribunal would have jurisdiction in view of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
6. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the Tribunal at Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to try the matter and petition had rightly been returned to file before the appropriate Tribunal in accordance with law.
7. Section 166 of the Act reads as under:-
'166. Application for compensation.(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application:
Provided further that where a person accepts compensation under Section 164 in accordance with the procedure provided under Section 149, his claims petition before the Claims Tribunal shall lapse.
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
