Back
2018 Supreme(UK) 26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Lok Pal Singh, J.
Hari Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Bhupinder Singh & Anr. – Respondents
Appeal from Order No.93 of 2009
Decided On : 09-04-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. M.K. Goyal, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the wide option available to claimants in determining the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal based on their residence, as provided under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 173 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166(2) - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal and the wide options available to claimants in determining the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It emphasized the importance of residence of the claimant in determining jurisdiction and highlighted the special nature of the Act, which provides wider jurisdiction than a civil court. The court also referred to the judgment in Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 244, to support its decision on territorial jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was riding a cycle when he was hit by a car, resulting in his death. The claimants, who were the deceased's family, filed a claim petition seeking compensation. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal had committed a grave error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It held that the claimants were residing at a different location than the accident site, and the Tribunal's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the evidence.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the claim petition. The court also considered the validity of the driving license, registration certificate, and insurance of the vehicle, as well as the entitlement of the claimants to receive compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides claimants with a wide option in determining the jurisdiction of the Tribunal based on their residence. The court emphasized the importance of residence in determining jurisdiction and highlighted the special nature of the Act, which provides wider jurisdiction than a civil court.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the claim petition afresh on its own merits, after hearing all the parties concerned.
Lok Pal Singh, J.
This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 31.10.2008 passed by III F.T.C./Additional District Judge, Haridwar in M.A.C.T. No.57 of 2005, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 19.10.2001 Jai Pal Singh (deceased) was going from Madhuban Police Complex to Karnal Chowk by riding a cycle on the left hand side of the unmetalled road. At about 6.45 pm, when he reached near Premium Thread Factory Karnal, on Panipat to Karnal G.T. Road, a Maruti Car bearing Registration no.PB-21-0005 being driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.2, came from behind and hit the cycle of Jai Pal Singh by going on extreme left side of the road. As a result, Jai Pal Singh fell down and suffered multiple, simple and grievous injuries including head injury and was taken to Civil Hospital Karnal from the spot where he succumbed to the injuries. With these averments, the claimants, who are father, children and wife of the deceased, filed the claim petition before Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Haridwar. In the claim petition, the claimants stated that the deceased was aged 49 years and was enjoying very good health. He was employed as Assistant Sub Inspector with Haryana Police and was getting salary @ Rs. 9880/- per month. All the claimants were solely dependents on the income of deceased. Hence, they claimed a sum of Rs. 25 Lacs as compensation from the opposite party along with interest @ 18 % per annum.
3. Opposite party no.3, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed its written statement, denying most of the averments made in the claim petition. In additional pleas, it has stated that the claim petition has been filed without any motive. It also stated that on the date and time of alleged accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license, permit, registration, etc. due to which the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. It has also stated that the claimants have not annexed any document, post-mortem report, etc. with the claim petition.
4. Opposite party no.2, driver of offending vehicle, also filed his written statement. In the written statement, he denied the allegation that he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. He stated that he was driving the vehicle at a very moderate speed and the accident occurred due to fault of deceased, who was riding his cycle on the wrong side. He also stated that he was having valid driving license and that the vehicle was insured with opposite party no.1.
5. On the basis of pleading of the parties, learned Tribunal framed following issues:
(i) Whether on 19.10.2001 driver of Maruti Car bearing Registration no.PB- 21-0005 while driving the car in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased Jai Pal Singh, causing death of deceased?
(ii) Whether driver of Maruti Car bearing Registration no.PB-21-0005 was having valid driving license and registration certificate of the vehicle?
(iii) Whether the vehicle in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.?
(iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation? If yes, then how much and from which party?
(v) Whether the Tribunal is having jurisdiction to hear and decide the claim petition?
6. Thereafter, the parties led their evidence. In documentary evidence, the claimants filed affidavit of Smt. Prakasho Devi, report 7C1/1 to 7C 1/3, paper no.8C1/1, 8C1/2, charge-sheet and list of evidence 27C, pay slip, copy of First Information Report, Insurance copy of the vehicle, certified copy of charge-sheet, date of birth certificate of the deceased, postmortem report. In oral evidence, claimants got examined P.W.1 Smt. Santosh Devi, P.W.2 Sulkhan Singh, P.W.3 Dr. Kuldeep Singh, P.W.4 Hari Singh, P.W.5 Ashwini Kumar and P.W.6 Sohan Singh. Opposite party no.3 Oriental Insurance Company did n
