Delhi High Court
Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co ... vs Anjali Bouter Singh & Ors. on 19 July, 2019
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 19.07.2019
+ CM(M) 1353/2018, CM APPL. 46355/2018
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.K. Soni and Mr. Pavan Kumar
Vashishth, Advs.
Versus
ANJALI BOUTER SINGH & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amir Singh Pasrich, Adv. with Mr.
Kalyan Arambam, Adv. and Mr. Amit Ranjan
Singh, Adv. for respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Oral)
1. This petition impugns the order of the learned MACT dismissing the
petitioner's objections, apropos the Tribunal's jurisdiction to entertain the
claim petition, filed on behalf of the deceased as well as the injured persons,
through their duly appointed attorney.
2. Referring to the dicta of the Supreme Court in Malati Sardar vs.
National Insurance Company Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2016 (arising
out of SLP (Civil) No. 27243 of 2015), the learned Tribunal has held that a
hyper-technical approach cannot be taken to obviate jurisdiction. It has also
taken into consideration the fact that the office of the insurer was in Delhi.
Furthermore, the claim petition can be filed through a duly authorised
agent/attorney under section 166 (1) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
Ms. Sadhana Upadhyay, a resident of Vasant Kunj, Delhi and the learned
MACT has jurisdiction over the said area. Therefore, it was held that the
claim was maintainable before the Tribunal. In Malati Sardar (supra), the
Supreme Court has held as under:
"14. 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, contrary view taken by
the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court
failed to notice the provision of Section 21 CPC."
3. The impugned order has also referred to the decision of the Rajasthan
High Court in Khandokar Afia Sultana & Ors. Vs. P.O. MACT & Ors., SB
Civil Writ Petition Nos. 8812, 18561, 18604 & 18613/2013, decided on
06.05.2014 which held that a Power of Attorney holder also can file a claim
petition before the MACT within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
said Attorney either resides or carries on business.
4. Mr. Amir Singh Pasrich, the learned counsel for the respondent has
handed over a copy of the insurance policy issued by the appellant apropos
the offending vehicle, a copy of the same has also been supplied to the
learned counsel for the appellant. At the lower end of the page, the insurance
policy shows the Issuing Office as Delhi. Interestingly, the registered office
of the appellant is at District Centre, Saket, New Delhi.
5. In the circumstances, there is no error shown in the impugned order,
warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the appeal. It is
accordingly dismissed.
6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that instead
of the matter proceeding adversarily, an endeavour could well be made to
settle the claim amicably. It is in this conciliatory spirit and on the request
of the learned counsel for the parties, that the case is referred to the Delhi
High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, where the parties shall
appear on 27.08.2019 at 3 pm. The claim of the respondent is already on
record. It would be open to the appellant to first consider the same so that
appearance before the Mediation Centre is meaningful. Additional
documents and computations, as may be required or may be instructive, may
be supplied by the learned counsel for the respondent to the learned counsel
for the petitioner.
7. The petition is disposed off in the above terms.
8. A copy of this order be given dasti to the parties under the signature
of the Court Master.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
JULY 19, 2019/acm
