LexMANTOO SARKAR versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 753 MANTOO SARKAR A v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 7318 of 2008) DECEMBER 16, 2008 B [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.) .. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166 - Territorial jurisdiction .,., - Accident took place in Bareilly - Claimant, a migraht - labourer, originally resident of Pilibhit, was working and c residing in Nainital during relevant period - Claim petition filed before Tribunal, Nainital - Maintainability of - Held: Maintainable - Jurisdiction of tribunal is wider than the civil court - Residence of claimant relevant for determining jurisdiction of tribunal - Jurisdiction - Territorial jurisdiction. D Appeal - On the ground of Jack of territorial jurisdiction -( of court below to pass the impugned order - Held: Not to be entertained unless the appellant was able to show sufferance of prejudice - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.21. Appellant-claimant was travelling as a passenger in E a bus belonging to Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation. The_ bus collided with a truck in the town of Faridpur in the District of Uttar Pradesh and as a result, the appellant suffered grievous injuries. The truck belonged to respondent No. 2 and was registered at F Faridabad. It WCl$ insured with respondent No. 1 Company, having branch office at Nainital. Appellant underwent several operations. Before the accident, appellant was working as a seasonal agricultural labourer and residing at Piliphit in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He G filed a claim petition before MACT, Nainital, Uttranchal claiming Rs. 23.90 lakhs. The Tribunal held that since the Insurance Company had a branch Office at Nainital, it had territorial jurisdiction to determine the claim petition. Accordingly,· it made an award of Rs. 2.40 lakhs. On 753 H 754 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A appeal filed by respondent 1, High Court held that M~CT, Nainital had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said claim petition. Hence the present appeal. .,..., Allowing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a special statute. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal having regard to the terminologies used therein must be held to be wider than the civil court. A claimant has a wide option. Residence of the claimant also determines jurisdiction of , the Tribunal. What would be a residence of a person )" c would, however, depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. Appellant was a resident of ..... Pilibhit, which is in the State of Uttar Pradesh. He being a migrant labourer accepted job wherever he got and resided there. He, admittedly, was working in Nainital D district and residing there during the period of accident. \ The fact that he was thus a resident of Nainital in the State of Uttaranchal was neither denied nor disputed. The High Court unfortunately in its judgment did not assign sufficient or cogent reason as to why the Tribunal, E Nainital committed illegality in holding that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. [Paras 10 and 13] [760-C-F] 2.1. No doubt, the Tribunal must exercise jurisdiction having regard to the ingredients laid down under sub- F section (2) of s.166 of the Act. In terms of s.169 of the Act, the Tribunal, subject to any rules, may follow a summary procedure. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure ~ under the Act has a limited application but in terms of the rules 'save and except' any specific provision made in G that behalf, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure' would apply. Even otherwise, the principles laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure may be held to be applicable in a case of this nature. [Para 14] [760-G-H; 761-A] 2.2. Ordinarily an appellate Court shall not, having r H ,,_ MANTOO SARKAR v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 755 AND ORS. regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of A s.21 CPC, entertain an appeal on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the court below unless he has been prejudiced thereby. Other respondents did not raise any question of jurisdiction. Although one witness each, had been examined on 8 behalf of the truck owner and owner of the bus, neither a question of lack of territorial jurisdiction was raised nor the question of any prejudice had been argued. It is only the first respondent who raised the question of territorial jurisdiction. However,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.