Delhi High Court
Shila & Anr vs Jitender & Anr on 30 October, 2017
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 30th October, 2017
+ MAC.APP. 518/2015 and CM 38395/2017
SHILA & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Anshuman Bal, Advocate
versus
JITENDER & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant had instituted accident case (suit no.261/14) on
16.07.2012 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) at
New Delhi district seeking compensation on account of death of Vikas
Giri in a motor vehicular accident that statedly occurred on 19.04.2012
in the area of Sectors 60 & 61 of police station Sector 58, Noida, U.P.
on account of the negligent driving of a bus bearing registration no.
UP-16AT-6199 admittedly insured against third party risk with the
second respondent (insurer) for the period in question. The appellants
/ claimants are concededly natives of District Mathura in U.P. They
had instituted the accident claim case declaring their residential
address to be House no.3, Block H, Sector-5, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,
Delhi-110 062. The address of the second respondent was given as
Connaught Circus, New Delhi.
2. The tribunal issued notice to the respondents that included the
driver and owner of the bus besides the insurance company. The
name of the first respondent before the tribunal (driver) stood deleted
since he had reportedly died. The tribunal framed issues on
10.05.2014, the first involving the question as to whether the death
had occurred due to negligent driving of the bus and, the second, as to
whether the claimants were entitled to compensation and, if so, to
what amount and who was to be held liable to pay the same, the third
concerning relief. The claimants led evidence whereafter opportunity
was given to the parties that were contesting to lead evidence in
rebuttal and the tribunal rendered its judgment on 27.01.2015
observing that it had no territorial jurisdiction because the claimants
had not mustered any proof regarding their residence in Delhi. The
claim petition was, thus, directed to be returned to be presented before
an appropriate tribunal having jurisdiction to decide the same.
3. The appeal was put in the list of regulars as per order dated
07.02.2017. On the application (CM 38395/2017) of the appellants
for early hearing and, with the consent of counsel on both sides, it has
been taken up for final hearing and disposal.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the record, this court is of the opinion that the approach of the
tribunal to the matter was most unfair and inappropriate. No issue was
framed on the question of territorial jurisdiction. The claimants were
not even called upon to lead any evidence in that regard. Having
concluded the inquiry into the issues framed, it was not fair to throw a
surprise on the claimants by junking the petition out on the issue of
jurisdiction. The least that the tribunal could have done was to frame
an additional issue if it actually arose and then call upon the claimants
to prove the propriety of the jurisdiction they had invoked.
5. In the given facts and circumstances where the inquiry had
reached the conclusion and only the issue of involvement and
negligent besides that of computation of compensation was required to
be addressed, no case of prejudice having been agitated by the insurer,
it undoubtedly having an office within the territorial jurisdiction of the
tribunal, the view taken in the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained.
6. The judgment of the tribunal holding want of territorial
jurisdiction is set aside. The matter is remitted to the tribunal for fresh
adjudication on the issues already framed, by a fresh judgment. For
such purposes, the parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on
28.11.2017.
7. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
OCTOBER 30, 2017
yg
