2016 (8) TMI 917 - SC - Indian Laws

Entitlement to award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kolkata - whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the award only on the ground that the Tribunal did not have the territorial jurisdiction? - Held that - The provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hyper technical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated. 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. There is no failure of justice. Moreover, in view of categorical decision of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (2008 (12) TMI 719 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ), contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court failed to notice the provision of Section 21 CPC. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the award of the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kolkata in setting aside an award based on territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The case involved a fatal accident where the deceased was hit by a bus in Hoogly, West Bengal, leading to a compensation claim filed before the Tribunal at Kolkata. The Tribunal awarded compensation considering various factors, including the deceased's income and age multiplier. The respondent company appealed to the High Court solely on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The High Court upheld the objection, emphasizing that the accident and the parties' residences were in Hoogly, outside Kolkata's jurisdiction. It cited previous judgments and held that the Tribunal in Kolkata had no jurisdiction based on the location of the accident and the claimant's residence. The High Court directed the refund of any amount paid.

The appellant argued that the High Court erred in its interpretation of jurisdiction under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, contending that the defendant's residence, including its principal office, could establish jurisdiction. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court judgment to support this argument and claimed that the decisions cited by the respondent were not applicable to the present case.

The main issue for consideration was whether the Kolkata Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the claim when the accident occurred and the claimant resided outside Kolkata but the respondent conducted business in Kolkata. The Supreme Court referred to a previous judgment involving territorial jurisdiction and emphasized that objections to jurisdiction should not be entertained without prejudice or failure of justice.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the Tribunal's award without any failure of justice, especially considering the insurance company's business presence in Kolkata. It highlighted the benevolent nature of the provision for accident victims and criticized a hyper-technical approach. The Court concluded that the contrary view taken by the High Court was unsustainable, and it reinstated the Tribunal's award, citing the relevance of Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code in such matters.