2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 58778
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY-2022
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
MFA No.200001/2020 (MV)
BETWEEN:
Dhanaji S/o Ramachandra Kadam,
Age: 55 years, Occ: Business,
R/o Tajpur, Sakina Tajpur,
Tq. & Dist: Vijayapura-586101.
... Appellant
(By Sri. Koujalagi Chandrakant Laxman, Advocate)
AND:
1.
Shri. Vijay S/o Ganapath Rao More,
Age: Major, Occ: Business,
R/o P.B.No.22, Sanjyoth Nivas Kisan Chowk,
Opp. Market Yard, Sangli,
Dist: Sangli-416410 (Maharashtra)
2.
The Manager,
TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited,
A-501, 5th floor, Building No.4,
Infinity Park, Dindoshi, Malad East,
Mumbai-400 097 (Maharashtra)
... Respondents
(By Sri.Sudarshan.M, Advocate for R2;
R1 serve)
2
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to call for the
records, be pleased to set aside the judgment and award
dated 21.01.2019 in MVC No.895/2014 passed by the IV
Addl. Dist. & Session Judge & Member Motor Accidents
Claim Tribunal No.XIII, Vijayapur and grant compensation
in the interest of justice.
This appeal coming on for further orders this day,
K.S. Hemalekha J, delivered the following:
This appeal is preferred by the claimant assailing the
impugned judgment and award dated 21.01.2019 passed
in MVC.No.895/2014 on the file of the IV Additional District
Judge and Member, MACT-13, Vijayapur (“the Tribunal” for
short), whereby the said claim petition filed by the
claimant was returned for presentation holding that the
Tribunal did not have territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate
the claim petition.
The claimant filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking
compensation of Rs.28,00,000/- for the injuries sustained
by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on
3
02.03.2014, wherein the petitioner was the rider and one
Jayashree was the pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing
registration No.MH-10 BE 5662 and when they were
proceedings towards Tilasangi for attending a funeral and
approached the land of one Prakash Padavalkar on Kole-
Tilasangi Road at about 8.30 a.m., the Motor car of TATA
Make under Model name Indigo bearing Reg.No.MH-10 BA-
9174 came from the opposite direction in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, due to
which the claimant sustained grievous injuries.
3.
Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle and
respondent
No.2-insurer
of
the
vehicle
filed
their
objections contending that the Tribunal did not have
jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and hence, sought for
dismissal of the petition on the ground that respondent
No.2 did not have any business at Vijaypura, nor the
claimant was from Vijaypura, nor accident occurred at
Vijaypura within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
4
4.
On the basis of the said pleadings, the Tribunal
framed the following issues:
ISSUES
1. Whether petitioners prove that he was
driving Motor Cycle bearing Registration
No.MH-10 BE 5662 sustained injuries in a
road traffic accident that took place on
02.03.2014 at about 8:30 Hours from Kole
Tisangio Road Near the land of Prakash
Padavikar,
due
to rash and
negligent
manner driving of Indigo [TATA} car bearing
Reg.No.MH-10 BA-9174 by its driver as
averment in petition?
2. Whether
petitioner
is
entitled
for
compensation? If so, what quantum and
from whom?
3. What order or award?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
I.
Whether the Respondent No.2 proves that
this Court has no Territorial Jurisdiction to
try this petition as contended in Paragraph
3 of the written Statement?
II
Whether the Respondent No.2 proves that
the driver of Car bearing No.MH-10 BA 9174
did not possess the valid and effective
driving Licence to Drive the said Vehicle at
the time of accident as alleged?
5
5.
The Tribunal held that the petition is to be
returned for want of territorial jurisdiction. Aggrieved by
this order, the claimant is in appeal.
6.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company
and perused the material on record.
7.
A plain reading of Additional Issue No.1 would
depict that the Tribunal framed this issue to ascertain the
territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal. While considering the
said issue, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the
decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Malati
Sardar vs. National Insurance Company Limited and
others [(2016) 3 SCC 43] and Mantoo Sarkar vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others
[2009 (2) SCC 244] to come to the conclusion that the
Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the
claim petition, but failed to apply the dictum of the Hon'ble
Apex Court stated supra, in proper perspective in the facts
and circumstances of the case, as the claimant produced
6
Ex.P7-Pass Book to show the proof of residence of the
claimant that he is the resident of Vijayapura. The said
document corroborated with the evidence of PW.1 would
show the aspect of residence of the claimant at Vijayapura
which appears to be disbelieved by the Tribunal. Section
166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 gives an option to
the claimant to file the application either to the Claims
Tribunal having j