9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst Information Report was lodged against the driver of the said truck under Sections 279, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Indisputably the said truck belonged to respondent No.2 and was registered at Faridabad. It was insured with respondent No.1-company. Appellant was working as a skilled migrant seasonal agricultural labourer. He had been earning his livelihood at the relevant time by performing his job as a labourer in the work of extracting sand gravel from a river named Hola River near Beri Pada, Lalkuan, Distt. Nainital, Uttaranchal. He is said to have been living for a long time at Pilibhit in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Indisputably, after he remained in the district Hospital at Bareilly as an indoor patient upto 28th July, 2003, he was shifted to Prabhakar Hospital in Pilibhit. He underwent several operations. 4. Appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nainital (for short the Tribunal ) claiming a sum of ₹ 23,90,000/- (Rupees twenty three lakh ninety thousand only) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of actual payment. 5. Respondent No.1 has a branch office at Nainital. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot of the Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, the office of the owner of the truck being at Gurgaon, office of the insurance company being at Delhi, the Tribunal at Nainital did not have any territorial jurisdiction. 9. Section 166(2) of the Act reads as under :- 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: Provided that where no claim for 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. 10. The said Act 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and as provided for under Section 170 of the Act, the insurance company can defend a claim petition. Only on limited grounds it may be permitted to question the quantum of compensation. 17. The Tribunal is a court subordinate to the High Court. An appeal against the Tribunal lies before the High Court. The High Court, while exercising its appellate power, would follow the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure or akin thereto. In view of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the appellate court to pose unto itself the right question, viz., whether the first respondent has been able to show sufferance of any prejudice. If it has not suffered any prejudice or otherwise no failure of justice had occurred, the High Court should not have entertained the appeal on that ground alone. 18. We, however, while taking that factor into consideration must place on record that we are not oblivious of the fact that a decision rendered without jurisdiction would be coram non juris. Objection in regard to jurisdiction may be taken at any stage. ( See Chief Engineer, Hydel Project v. Ravinder Nath , [ (2008) 2 SCC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court held: (AIR p. 342, paras 6-7) 6. ... If the question now under consideration fell to be determined only on the application of general principles governing the matter, there can be no doubt that the District Court of Monghyr was coram non judice and that its judgment and decree would be nullities. The question is what is the effect of Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act on this position. 7. Section 11 enacts that notwithstanding anything in Section 578 of the Code of Civil Procedure an objection that a court which had no jurisdiction over a suit or appeal had exercised it by reason of overvaluation or undervaluation, should not be entertained by an appellate court, except as provided in the section. Then follow provisions as to when the objections could be entertained, and how they are to be dealt with. The drafting of the section has come in-and deservedly-for considerable criticism; but amidst much that is obscure and confused, there is one principle which stands out clear and conspicuous. It is that a decree passed by a court, which would have had no jurisdiction to hear a suit or appeal but for overvaluation or undervaluation, is not to be treated as, what ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt vis- -vis an appellate court a large number of factors may have to be taken in consideration. [See Ambica Industries v. CCE, (2007) 6 SCC 769]. We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the appellant herein was a labourer. The justness or otherwise of the amount of compensation has not been disputed before us. If the High Court judgment is to be complied with, appellant would again have to initiate another proceeding either at Bareilly or Gurgaon or at Delhi or at Jabalpur. The same evidence would have to be rendered once again. The question of fact which was required to be determined in the proceeding before the Tribunal, namely whether the driver of the truck or the driver of the bus had been driving their respective vehicles rashly and negligently would have to be determined afresh. The factual finding recorded in this case is that the driver of the truck was driving the truck rashly and negligently. In our opinion, in a case of this nature, we may even exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In New India Insurance Company v. Darshana Devi and others, [(2008) 7 SCC 416], this Court held: 20. Having said so, we must take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
