Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Rakesh Kumar And Anr on 10 March, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010120082017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/2/2017
SMTI WANCHUA LYNGDOH and 2 ORS
W/O LT. KOBISAL PASI
2: MISS COMBELLA LYNGDOH
D/O LT. KOBISAL PASI
3: HAME MARBINGKI LYNGDOH
S/O LT. KOBISAL PASI
ALL ARE PERMANENT R/O VILL. NONGBAH
P.O. and P.S. JOWAI
DIST- JAINTIA HILLS
MEGHALAYA
PRESENTLY R/O C/O SRI CELESTINE ATWARD
VILL. DURGACHERRA
P.O. DUMCHERRA
P.S. BORKHOLA
DIST- CACHAR
ASSA
VERSUS
RAKESH KUMAR and ANR.
S/O SRI HAWA SINGH, R/O SHEOPURA, RAJGARH CHURAHA, RAJASTHAN,
OWNER OF RJ-10GA/1571
2:RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
REP. BY THE MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD.
ANIL PLAZAL
5TH FLOOR
G.S. ROAD
ABC
GHY-4
DIST- KAMRUP
Page No.# 2/4
ASSAM
BRANCH OFFICE SONAI ROAD
SILCHAR-6
DIST- CACHAR
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.N KALITA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.K K BHATTAR-2
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 10.03.2021
Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for
the petitioners. Also heard Ms. R. Devi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2. As
per the office note dated 08.03.2021, neither A/D card nor unserved notice was received back
from the respondent no.1. As the petitioner is found to have taken postal steps at the correct
address of the respondent no.1 by invoking the provisions of Section 27 of the General
Clauses Act, notice on the respondent no. 1 is deemed to be duly served. None appears on
call for the respondent no.1.
2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to assail
the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Cachar at Silchar in MAC
Case No. 1224/2012, by which the claim petition filed by the petitioners was returned at the
judgment stage on the ground that the petitioners are not the permanent residents within the
territorial jurisdiction of the said learned Tribunal.
3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although in the claim
petition and in the evidence tendered by the petitioner no.1, it was stated that the petitioners
were presently residing at village Durgacherra, P.O. Dumcherra, PS- Borkhola in the district of
Page No.# 3/4
Cachar, but without assigning any cogent reason, the learned Tribunal arrived at a finding
that the petitioners were not the residents of their address given at Cachar on the ground
that the petitioners could not produce any document from the owner under whom they were
residing. It is submitted that there was no dispute as regards the place of residence of the
petitioners and in view of Section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the petitioners
were not put to notice to prove their place of residence. But, on the said ground, the claim
petition was returned for filing before the appropriate forum having territorial jurisdiction. It is
also submitted that the learned Tribunal had committed grave error in appreciating the
provisions of Section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act by arriving at a finding that the
Tribunal will have no jurisdiction in view of Section 166(2) of the M.V. Act because in the said
provision, nowhere it is written that one shall prefer an application before the Claim Tribunals
within the local jurisdiction the defendant has a branch office or carries his business. In this
regard, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the provisions of
Section 166 (2) of the M.V. Act, which gives jurisdiction to the learned Tribunal over the area
in which the accident occurred or to the claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the defendant resides. In this regard, he has also placed reliance on the
provisions of Section 20(b) of the CPC.
4. It has come to the notice of the Court that in a similar situation where the claim
petition was returned by the same learned Tribunal i.e. Member, MACT, Cachar at Silchar in
MAC Case No. 1059/2010, the claimant therein had assailed the order of return of claim
petition passed on 24.08.2016, which was registered as CRP 186/2017 (Md. Sukkur Ali
Barbhuiya Vs. Md. Zakir Hussin Barbhuiya and Anr.) wherein, this Court had considered in
details the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal to entertain a claim petition
and it was held that the refusal by the learned Tribunal to entertain the claim petition was in
clear contradiction to the ratio laid down in Malati Sardar Vs. National Insurance Company
Ltd. and Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 43 and accordingly, by interfering with the order impugned
therein, direction was issued to the said learned Tribunal to accept the claim petition and to
decide the matter as per law.
Page No.# 4/4
5. The facts of the said case of Md. Sukkur Ali Barbhuiya (supra) is similar to the one
presented in the present revision and therefore, the ratio laid down in the said case is found
to squarely applied on the facts and circumstances of this case in hand. Accordingly, the
Court is inclined to hold that the learned Member, MACT, Cachar at Silchar had committed
jurisdictional error by returning the claim petition by the impugned order dated 12.08.2016
passed in MAC Case No. 1224/2012, being contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court of
India in the case of Malati Sardar (supra).
6. Accordingly, this revision petition stands allowed by setting aside the impugned order
dated 12.08.2016 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Cachar at Silchar in MAC Case No.
1224/2012. Consequently, the said learned Tribunal shall now accept the claim petition if re-
filed by the petitioner within the period of one month from today and decide the said claim
petition as per law without any further delay.
7. The revision petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
