MALATI SARDAR versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 601 · Decided: 05-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] l S.C.R. 601 
MALATI SARDAR 
v. 
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 10of2016) 
JANUARY 5, 2016 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166(2) - Compensation -
Territorial jurisdiction -Accident took place in Hoogly and claimant 
also resided in Hoogly - Office of respondent at Kolkata - Claim 
petition filed before Tribunal at Kolkata -Award passed by Tribunal 
on the ground that registered office of the insurance company was 
within its territorial limits - High Court set aside award holding 
that Kolkata Tribunal could not exercise jurisdiction - Held: Hm•ing 
regard to s.24 CPC, objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction could 
not be entertained in absence of any prejudice - The provision for 
compensation is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents 
of negligent driving - Hyper technical approach in such matters 
should not be taken - There is no bar to a claim petition being filed 
at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting 
parties in such cases, has its business - In such cases, there is no 
prejudice to any party and no failure of justice - Moreover, in view 
of categorical decision of this Court in Mtmloo Sarkar contrary 
view taken by the High Court is not sustained. 
Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited 
(2009) 2 SCC 244: 2008 (17) SCR 753 - relied on. 
Union of India VS. GS. Grewal (2014) 7 sec 303; 
Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Director, Health Services, 
Haryana (2013) 10 SCC 136: 2013 (8) SCR 77 -
held inapplicable. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Kiran SinJ?h vs. Chaman Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340: · 
G 
1955 SCR 117 - referred to. 
(2914) 1 sec 303 
2013 (8) SCR 77 
2008 (17) SCR 753 
Case Law Reference 
held inapplicable. 
held inapplicable. 
relied on. 
601 
Para4 
Para4 
Para4 
H 
602 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] I S.C.R. 
A 
1955 SCR 117 
referred to. 
Para 11 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. I 0 of 
2016 
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2015 at the High Court 
of Calcutta in F. M.A. No. 1106 of2012. 
S. S. Sarangi, Dr. Suman! Bhardwaj, Rakesh Kailash Sharma 
(for Mridula Ray Bharadwaj) for the Appellant. 
C. K. Gola, Abhishek Gola, Viresh B. Saharya, A. Agarwal for 
the Respondent. 
C 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J. I. Leave granted. The question 
raised in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in setting 
aside the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kolkata only 
on the ground that the Tribunal did not have the territorialjurisdiction. 
2. On 7"' May, 2008, the deceased Diganta Sardar, aged 26 years, 
a school teacher, unmarried son of the appellant was hit by Bus No. WB/ 
l 5-A-4959 insured with the respondent company at Hoogly, in the State 
of West Bengal and died. He was travelling on motor cycle of his 
colle:ague, Uttam Samui as a pillion rider. The appellant filed an 
application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the 
Act") for compensation before the Tribunal at Kolkata. 
3. 
Rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus having 
been established, the Tribunal, applying the multiplier of 13 on account 
of age of the appellant being 4 7 years, and taking into account the income 
of the deceased and other relevant factors, fixed compensation of 
Rs.16,12,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing 
of claim petition vide its Award dated 7"' February, 2012. 
4. 
The respondent company preferred an appeal before the High 
Court on the only ground oflack of territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 
The objection of the respondent was that the accident took place at 
Hoogly and the claimant resided at Hoogly. Office of the respondent 
bein!~ at Kolkata did not attract jurisdiction of the Kolkata Tribunal. 
Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Union oflndia 
vs. gs. Grewal L and Jtrgmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Director, Health 
'(2014) 7 sec 303 
MALATI SARDAR v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY 
LIMITED [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
Services, Haryanal apart from the High Court judgments. The appellant 
supported the award by placing reliance on judgment of this Court in 
Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited ~ apart 
from other judgments. 
5. The High Court upheld the objection of the respondent and 
allowed the appeal of the respondent company and directed refund of 
the amount deposited/paid, if any, to the respondent company. I

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