Delhi High Court
Bushara & Anr. vs Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. on 7 November, 2017
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 7th November, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 766/2017
BUSHARA & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Adv.
versus
DINESH KUMAR AGGARWAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Braj Kishore Roy, Adv. for
R-1 & 2.
Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellants had instituted accident claim case (MACT
14457/2015) before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (North East)
at District Courts Karkardooma on 08.02.2013 seeking compensation
on account of death of their son Junaid Khan in motor vehicular
accident that had occurred on 09.09.2012. It is alleged by them that
the accident was caused on account of negligent driving by the first
respondent of car bearing registration no. UP 15AL 8827, which is
registered in the name of the second respondent and stated to be
insured against third party risk with the third respondent. The accident
had occurred in District Pilkhuwa in State of Uttar Pradesh. The
appellants have given their residential address as House No. 1635,
New Mustafabad, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Gali No. 16A, Delhi - 110094.
2. The Tribunal had issued notices to the respondents who, by way
of a contest, had filed written statements. Issues were framed on
20.04.2015 and the claimants were called upon to lead evidence.
When the case had reached the stage of respondent's evidence,
objection was raised to the maintainability of the petition before the
tribunal, North East District of Delhi, on the ground it did not have
territorial jurisdiction. The tribunal, by order dated 02.06.2017,
upheld the said objection and directed the claim petition to be returned
for being presented before the competent forum having jurisdiction.
3. The prime reason for return of the claim petition as set out in
the impugned order is that the claimants had not been able to prove
that they are residents of Delhi, the only reliance on Aadhaar card
being found to be unsatisfactory. The claimants, in appeal, submit that
they have been local residents and even hold voter identity cards.
Their grievance that no issue on the question of jurisdiction was
framed and surprise has been sprung on them. This grievance appears
to be correct. Without framing any issue on the objection to the
jurisdiction, it was most unfair on the part of tribunal to short-shrift
the proceedings at the stage of respondent's evidence. The claimants
should have first been called upon to prove the evidence that they are
residents of the place they claim to be residing at.
4. The impugned judgment is, thus, set aside, the matter is
remitted to the tribunal for further inquiry in accordance with law.
The parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 8 th December,
2017.
5. The tribunal will have the liberty to frame an issue on the
question of jurisdiction, if it actually arises, and then call upon first the
claimants and the opposite party to lead evidence thereupon to reach
an appropriate decision.
6. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
NOVEMBER 07, 2017
nk
