F.A.O No.429 of 1998

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

F.A.O No.429 of 1998

Date of Decision.30.11.2010

Smt. Sona Devi wd/o Sh. Birbal s/o Sh. Bichha Ram and others

......Appellants

Versus

Anil Kumar son of Shri Mahavir Singh and others

......Respondents

Present:

Mr. S.K. Chauhan, Advocate for

Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate

for the insurance company.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to

see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the

Digest?

-.-

K. KANNAN J.

I.

The cause of action or the bundle of causes

1.

The appeal is at the instance of a claimant, who along with

several other persons through independent petitions approached

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, for claiming compensation for

death of the 1^st claimant’s husband in a motor accident. The

deceased was one of 54 pilgrims, who had hired tour operator’s

services from Karnal to go to several places on worship in Northern

India, including Haridwar, Ayodhya, Jagan Nath Puri and also to

Nepal and reach the starting point in India through bus having

registration No.UP-10B-0939. The tour was said to have been

1

F.A.O No.429 of 1998

operated by a tour operator in India and the bus in the course of

its transit at Kathmandu fell into Trishuli Nadi. All the persons

travelling in the bus drowned in the river and had died.

II.

Accident in Nepal, a foreign country – the

maintainability is the core issue

2.

On a preliminary objection taken by the insurance company

that the petition was not maintainable, for the accident had taken

in a country to which the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are

not applicable, the Tribunal rejected the claim petition without

going to the merits of the case and found that the provisions of the

Motor Vehicles Act were applicable only to the territory of India

excluding Jammu and Kashmir and therefore, there was no valid

cause of action for pursuit before the Tribunal for an accident that

had taken place in Nepal. The point urged in appeal by the

claimants is that Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes

possible the place of residence of the claimant as constituting a

jurisdiction for the Tribunal to entertain the claim and therefore,

the case filed at Court of Ambala where they were residing had

jurisdiction. The Tribunal rejected the petition on the ground that

the Tribunal which is constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act can

hear and dispose of case only in respect of accidents that take

place within the limits of India to which the provisions of the Act is

extended. The Tribunal observed that any accident, if it takes

place in a foreign country, can leave no cause of action to enforce

before the Tribunal.

III.

Existence of foreign element, cause for application of

private international law

2

F.A.O No.429 of 1998

3.

The issue in this case really is one of application of the Rules

of Conflict of Laws or Private International Law, for the claim is at

the instance of legal representatives of a deceased, who was an

Indian citizen, who had entered into a contract with the contractor

in India, who had availed the services of a public service vehicle in

India and who was supposed to return to a place in India where a

foreign country was merely a place of transit. The only foreign

element involved in the case is that the accident had taken place

in a foreign country; otherwise, all the causes of action relating to

a contract to carry a passenger, the person who caused the

accident, the owner of the vehicle who was involved in the

accident are all Indians.

IV.

Relevant provisions of MV Act that invoke ‘foreign

elements’

4.

On the claims for death or bodily injury arising out of motor

accident taking place within India is undoubtedly governed by the

provisions of th