SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top