BALVEER BATRA versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1204 · Decided: 08-02-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.T. RAVIKUMAR · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 1204 : 2024 INSC 361
Balveer Batra 
v. 
The New India Assurance Company & Anr. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1842 of 2024)
08 February 2024
[C.T. Ravikumar* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The question of territorial jurisdiction was decided by the Tribunal 
after about 4 years since the filing of the claim petition and the 
appeal filed in 2010 was dismissed, confirming the dismissal of 
the claim petition after about 6 years.
Headnotes
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – 
Victim (son of appellant) died in an motor vehicle accident 
– Appellant filed an application u/s. 166 of the MV before the 
tribunal – Issues framed – Both sides examined witnesses – 
Tribunal held that the mere fact that the insurance company 
got an office within the jurisdictional limits of the Tribunal 
could not confer jurisdiction on it – Based on negative finding 
on question of territorial jurisdiction, Tribunal decided all the 
other six issues against the claimant and in favour of the 
opposite parties – Claim petition was dismissed – High Court 
confirmed the view of the tribunal – Correctness:
Held: The words ‘at the option of the claimant’ employed in s.166(2) 
assumes relevance – Indubitably, the statute indicates that option 
lies with the claimant – Merely because the claimant made the 
application for compensation not to the Claims Tribunal having 
jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or not 
to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction 
he resides or carries on business, is no reason to dismiss the 
application provided it is filed before a Claims Tribunal where it is 
otherwise maintainable – The branch of the insurance company lied 
within the limits of the Tribunal where the subject claim petition was 
filed – Further, for the purpose of deciding the issue of territorial 
jurisdiction, the Tribunal permitted the parties to adduce evidence 
for it – In terms of Or. XIV, Rule 2 CPC, the issues regarding 
territorial jurisdiction ought to be tried as primary issues but when 
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 
1205
Balveer Batra v. The New India Assurance Company & Anr. 
it is evident that the issue could not be decided solely based on 
the pleadings in the plaint (here claim petition) and when parties 
are permitted to adduce evidence upon finding that it is a mixed 
question of law and facts there was absolutely no justification for 
not pronouncing an award on all the issues framed besides the 
one pertaining to its territorial jurisdiction – In the case on hand a 
great illegality or error was committed by the Tribunal even after 
observing that it got no occasion to examine the other six issues 
but then deciding those six issues against the claimant and in 
favour of the opposite parties – The said other six issues were 
examined without going into the merits – The very purpose of the 
benevolent legislation providing for grant of compensation under 
Section 166 of the M.V. Act was defeated – The claim petition 
was kept for 4 years and it was dismissed only on the ground 
of lack of jurisdiction – The High Court has fallen in error in not 
picking up the illegalities resulting in failure of justice and to resolve 
them appropriately – Considering the circumstances, the matter 
remanded back to the Tribunal, to proceed further and to decide 
the claim petition on merits. [Paras 17, 26, 28, 32]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.21 – Objection as to lack 
of territorial jurisdiction would not make a judgment/decree 
nullity:
Held: A bare perusal of Section 21, CPC would reveal that objection 
as to the place of suing is not to be entertained by any Appellate 
or Revisional Court if it was not taken in the Court of first instance 
at the earliest possible opportunity and unless there has been a 
consequent failure of justice – While looking into the object and 
reasons for the aforesaid provision it is very clear as to why lack 
of territorial jurisdiction by itself was not recognized under it as a 
reason to make a judgment/decree a nullity – It is to be noted that 
it is quite different and distinct from inherent lack of jurisdiction 
which would strike at the very authority of the Court to try a case 
and pass a judgment/decree and would make it a nullity – On a 
careful consideration of the provisions under Section 21, CPC, it 
would make it clear though taking of an objection as to the lack of 
territorial jurisdiction before the Court of fir

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.