Delhi High Court
Jagdish vs Narender & Ors. (Iffco Tokio ... on 16 July, 2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Mac. Appeal No.153/2015
Decided on : 16th July, 2015
JAGDISH ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Advocate.
Versus
NARENDER & ORS. (IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.)
...... Respondent
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated
16.9.2014 passed by the learned MACT holding that it does not have the
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition of the appellant.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant admittedly
is the resident of House No.61, A-Block, Sector 7, Ballabhgarh,
Faridabad, Haryana. A road accident had taken place on 30.1.2014 at
about 9:15 a.m. near New Press Colony, Faridabad, Haryana for which an
FIR No.39/2014 under Sections 279/337/338 IPC was registered by
police station Faridabad Kotwali, Haryana. The appellant filed a claim
petition in Delhi giving his address in the memo of parties as that of
Haryana. The address of the owner of the vehicle was also at Haryana;
however, so far as the insurance company is concerned, its address was
shown as IFFCO Sadan, C-1, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. The
learned MACT dismissed the petition with liberty to the appellant to file a
fresh petition in a court with proper territorial jurisdiction on the ground
that neither the appellant nor the accident or the insurance company
conferred jurisdiction at Delhi. For this purpose, the learned MACT had
taken note of the fact that the insurance policy itself was issued to the
owner of the vehicle from Bandra branch of the insurance company in
Maharashtra.
3. The learned counsel has assailed this order of the learned Tribunal
by contending that the claim petition can be filed in Delhi as the appellant
was a migrant labourer as well as the fact that the insurance policy
showed that the registered office of respondent No.3, insurance company,
was at District Saket, New Delhi. For this purpose, the learned counsel
has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in case titled
Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.; AIR 2009
SC 1022 to contend that the MACT of the place where the claimant is
residing will also have the jurisdiction.
4. I have thoughtfully considered the submission made by the learned
counsel for the appellant. Section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 reads as under :-
"166 - Application for compensation
(1) .................................
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be
made, at the option of 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 with the local limits
of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, they 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."
5. A perusal of the aforesaid section would clearly show that the
aforesaid sub-clause (2) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is
wider in its ambit and confers jurisdiction on the MACT of the place
where the claimant is also residing or where the accident had taken place
unlike Section 20 of the CPC where it is only the place where the
defendant resides, works for gain or where the cause of action has
accrued in whole or in part. Admittedly, in the instant case, the claimant
is not residing in Delhi and the accident had also not taken place in Delhi.
Moreover curiously enough, merely because the appellant has mentioned
the address of respondent No.3/insurance company in the claim petition
as that of Saket, New Delhi, is not, in my view, sufficient to confer
jurisdiction on the forum where the claim petition is filed. There has to
be a definite averment made by the claimant in the main body of the
petition as to how he has chosen the forum where the claim petition has
been filed which curiously is absent in the instant case.
6. So far as the judgment which has been relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellant is concerned, that is a case where admittedly the
claimant was living in Uttaranchal and the MACT at Uttaranchal had
awarded compensation to him after trial which was set aside by the High
Court of Uttaranchal on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Feeling
aggrieved, this impugned order passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal
was assailed before the Apex Court where the Supreme Court observed
that the MACT at Uttaranchal has the jurisdiction to award compensation
because at the relevant time, that is, at the time of filing of the claim
petition, the injured was living in Uttaranchal, therefore, this is a
distinguishable feature in the said judgment which distinguishes the
reported case from the present one.
7. So far as the office of the insurance company in District Saket,
New Delhi is concerned, that will not per se confer jurisdiction on the
MACT of Delhi when the policy has purportedly been issued to the
owner in respect of the offending vehicle from another State. Moreover,
there is no averment in the claim petition itself that the jurisdiction of
MACT of Delhi is sought to be invoked because of the registered office
of the insurance company in Delhi.
8. For these reasons, I feel though there is no illegality, impropriety or
perversity in the finding returned by the MACT holding that it does not
have the territorial jurisdiction, needless to say that the MACT has
rightfully given the liberty to the appellant to file his claim petition before
an appropriate forum.
9. With these observations, the appeal of the appellant is without any
merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
JULY 16, 2015
'AA'
