Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Page
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.1194 of 2023 Rinarani Behuria & Anr. …. Appellants Mr.B.N. Rath, Advocate Sumant Barik & Anr. -versus- …. Respondents Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate for R-2 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 29.08.2024 Order No. 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. B.N. Rath, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent no.2-company. 3. The present appeal has been filed inter alia challenging the judgment dated 16.12.2022 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-3rd M.A.C.T., Jharsuguda in MAC Case No. 43 of 2020. By the said judgment, the Tribunal refused to entertain the claim application and returned the same to the appellants on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Page 1 of 6 // 2 // 4. It is the case of the appellants that on the death of the deceased in a motor accident on 13.01.2014, the claimants made the claim by filing MAC Case No.43 of 2020 before the Tribunal. 4.1. It is contended that even though there is no bar for making such an application before the Tribunal in question, but on the ground that the accident had taken place in an area which does not come within the jurisdiction of Tribunal in question, claim application of the appellants was not entertained with passing of the impugned judgment. 4.2. In support of his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the appellants relied on the provisions contained under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 166(2) of the Act reads as follows:- “166. Application for compensation. – xx xx xx (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed: limits of whose 4.3. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the appellants also relied on the decision of the apex Court rendered on the issue in question so reported in 2016(1) TAC (SC) 337 (Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Page 2 of 6 // 3 // Ors.). The apex Court in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of such judgment has held as follows:- “9. The question for consideration thus is whether the Tribunal at Kolkata had the jurisdiction to decide the claim application under Section 166 of the Act when the accident took place outside Kolkata jurisdiction and the claimant also resided outside Kolkata jurisdiction, but the respondent being a juristic person carried on business at Kolkata. Further question is whether in absence of failure of justice, the High Court could set aside the award of the Tribunal on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 10. In our view, the matter is fully covered by decisions of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra). It will be worthwhile to quote the statutory provision of Section 166(2) of the Act : “166. Application for compensation.— * * * (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed: claim for that where no Provided compensation under Section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.” 11. In Mantoo Sarkar (supra), the insurance company had a branch at Nainital. Accident took place outside the jurisdiction of Nainital Tribunal. The claimant remained in the hospital at Bareilly and thereafter shifted to Pilibhit where he was living for a long time. However, at the time of filing of the claim petition he was working as a labourer in Nainital District. The High Court took the view that Nainital Tribunal had Page 3 of 6 // 4 // the provisions of Code regard no jurisdiction and reversed the view taken by the Tribunal to the effect that since the office of the insurance company was at Nainital, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction. This Court reversed the view of the High Court. It was held that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was wider than the civil court. The Tribunal of Civil follow could Procedure (CPC). Having to Section 21 CPC, objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction could not be entertained in absence of any prejudice. Distinction was required to be drawn between a jurisdiction with regard to subject matter on the one hand and that of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction on the other. A judgment may be nullity in the former category, but not in the later. Reference was also made to earlier in Kiran Singh vs. Chaman decision of this Court Paswan4 to the following effect : “With reference to objections relating to territorial jurisdiction, Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code enacts that no objection to the place of suing should be allowed by an appellate or revisional court, unless there was a consequent failure of justice. It is the same AIR 1954 SC 340 principle that has been adopted in Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act with reference to pecuniary jurisdiction. The policy underlying Sections 21 and 99 CPC and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is the same, namely, that when a case had been tried by a court on the merits and it should not be liable to be reversed purely it had on resulted in failure of justice, and the policy of treat legislature has been objections to jurisdiction both territorial and pecuniary as technical and not open to consideration by an appellate court, unless there has been a prejudice on the merits. The contention of the appellants, therefore, that the decree and judgment of the District Court, Monghyr, should be treated as a nullity cannot be sustained under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act.’ ” technical grounds, unless judgment rendered, the to Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 12. We are thus of the view that in the face of judgment of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra), the High Court was not justified in setting aside the award of the Tribunal in absence of any failure of justice even if there was merit in the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, the fact remained that the insurance company which was the main contesting respondent had its business at Kolkata.” 4.4. It is accordingly contended that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in view of the aforesaid settled position of law. 5. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2-company also contended that the claim application filed was very much entertainable by the Tribunal in question, in view of the provisions contained under Section 166(2) of the Act and the decision of the apex Court in Malati Sardar (supra). 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court, after going through the provisions contained under Section 166(2) of the Act and the decision of the apex Court in Malati Sardar (supra), is of the considered opinion that the claim application filed by the appellants was very much entertainable by the Tribunal in question. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to quash the judgment dated 16.12.2022 so passed by the learned Addl. District Judge- cum-3rd M.A.C.T., Jharsuguda in MAC Case No. 43 of 2020. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to the Tribunal to take up the application and decide the same in accordance with law. Page 5 of 6 // 6 // 7. Since it is contended that the matter is otherwise ready for hearing, save and except sufficiency of notice against the owner of the vehicle in question, this Court directs the learned Tribunal to dispose of the appeal by making notice sufficient against the owner of the vehicle, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. 8. With the above observation and direction, the appeal
Decision
stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge GDS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: GAYADHAR SAMAL Designation: JOINT REGISTRAR-CUM-PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Sep-2024 19:22:29 Page 6 of 6