Gujarat High Court
Imran Salim Nareja Being Minor Through ... vs Ishwarbhai Bhachubhai Dekabhai Mata on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2884/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2884 of 2025
==========================================================
IMRAN SALIM NAREJA BEING MINOR THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN
GRANDFATHER IBRAHIMBHAI RAMJUBHAI NAREJA
Versus
ISHWARBHAI BHACHUBHAI DEKABHAI MATA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 4,7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Nishit A. Bhalodi, learned advocate on record for the
petitioner-original claimant.
2. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court vide order dated
07.03.2025, learned advocate Mr. G.C. Mazmudar has entered his
appearance on behalf of respondent no.6 and learned advocate Ms.
Karuna Rahevar has entered her appearance on behalf of respondent
no.3-Insurance Company. Notice has been duly served upon
respondent nos.4 and 7, however, no appearance has been entered.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2884/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
3. Noticing the prayer sought for in the present petition and the
judgment relied upon by learned advocate for the petitioner, the
matter is taken up for hearing with the assistance of learned
advocates for the respective parties.
4. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 read with
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, at the instance of the original
claimant praying for following reliefs, which read as under:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to admit and
allow this petition.
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to pass an appropriate
direction by quashing and setting aside the order below
Exh.1 dated 08/10/2024 and allow the petitioner to
continue to proceed his MACP No.601/2023 before the
Ld. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Bhuj.
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay the order
dated 08/10/2024 below Exh.1 in MACP No.601/2023
(D) xxxxx"
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the
applicant had approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhuj by
preferring the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, (for short, "the Act, 1988") on 20.12.2023, which was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2884/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
registered as M.A.C.P. No.601 of 2023. Initially, the owner and the
driver of the vehicle, though being joined in the claim petition, the
Tribunal suo moto directed the deletion of the owner and the driver of
the vehicle involved in the accident. The applicant had, therefore, on
08.10.2024 moved an application at (Exh.20) to rejoin the aforesaid
deleted respondents. The prayer was sought for to issue process upon
the aforesaid proposed respondent nos.1, 2 and 5. While hearing of
the aforesaid application, the Tribunal, noticing the fact that the
accident had taken place within territorial jurisdiction of Anjar Taluka,
had passed the impugned order of returning the petition, so as to
present it before the appropriate Tribunal by invoking the provisions
of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
5.1 Learned advocate has further submitted that the aforesaid
impugned order is illegal, and is required to be quashed and set aside,
as the same is dehors the legal provision, more particularly, Section
166 (2) of the Act, 1988. The reliance was placed on the unreported
decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hemraj
Singh Rasun Singh Versus Sanjit Yadav S/O Naresh Yadav & Anr
(Common Oral Order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Special Civil
Application No. 11691 of 2024 and allied matters). This Court, upon
appreciation of the aforesaid provision, in light of the decision of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2884/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malati Sardar vs. National
Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2016 ACJ 542), has deprecated
the approach of the Tribunal of resorting to such hyper-technical
approach of returning the claim petition without understanding the
provisions of the Act, 1988.
5.2 By referring to the relevant observations of this Court in the
aforesaid decision, learned advocate has urged this Court to restore
the claim petition to its original file before the concerned Tribunal by
quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed below Exh.1.
He has also urged this Court to pass any further order, more
particularly, the application being moved seeking rejoining of the
opponent nos.1, 3 and 5, to be considered afresh.
6. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents-
Insurance Companies have objected to the aforesaid submissions, and
have supported the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal.
7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties
and having perused the impugned order passed below Exh.1, it
appears that at the stage of hearing of the application preferred by
the original claimant at Exh.20 seeking rejoining of opponent nos.1, 2
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2884/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
and 5, the Court having noted the fact that the aforesaid opponents
being the owner and driver of the vehicle involved having their offices
at Taluka Anjar, Kutchchh, and the original claim petition being
preferred in the month of December-2023, the Tribunal at Anjar was
the competent Court to hear and decide the claim petition. The
Tribunal had also noticed the fact that out of total seven parties to the
proceedings, three opponents along with the applicant, are residing
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Anjar Taluka, and therefore,the
claim petition being preferred atBhuj, was not maintainable, and
therefore, has proceeded to pass the order of return of petition by
invoking the Order VII Rule 10 of the Code.
8. Having noted the aforesaid findings and reasons assigned by the
Tribunal, while returning the claim petition, in light of the provisions,
more particularly, Section 166(2) of the Act, 1988, which provides the
application to be preferred for compensation gives an option to the
claimant either to apply before claim tribunal having jurisdiction over
the area in which the accident occurred or within the claim tribunal
within whose local jurisdiction, the claimant resides or carries on
business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant
resides. Thus, the claimant has been given an option to move the
appropriate application before the concerned Tribunal. In the facts of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2884/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
the present case, it is evident from the cause title of the petition, that
respective respondents- Insurance Companies are having their head
offices at Bhuj, Kutchchh.
9. This Court in the case of Hemraj Singh (supra) has followed the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malati Sardar
(supra). Upon considering the relevant observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, the Court had taken into
consideration the fact that the Insurance Company, which was the
main contesting respondent had its business at Calcutta (Kolkata),
noticing the benevolent legislation for the victims of the accident and
the negligent driving, the Court had consistently held that the
provision for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted with the
object of facilitating the remedies for the victims of the accidents. The
Court has observed that hyper-technical approach in such matters
ought to be avoided, if there is no bar to a claim petition being filed at
a place, where the Insurance Company, which is the main contesting
party, has its business, no prejudice or any failure of justice is likely to
be there.
10. Applying the aforesaid principles in the facts of the case, as
noted earlier, contesting respondents mainly the Insurance
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2884/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
Companies joined as defendants in the original claim petition are
having their head offices at Bhuj, Kutchchh. Hence, the Tribunal while
passing the impugned order of returning the plaint, committed
serious error in law by ignoring the aforesaid settled legal position
and the provision.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated
08.10.2024 passed by the learned 8th Additional District Judge (MACT
Auxliliary), Bhuj, below Exh.1 in M.A.C.P. No.601 of 2023, is hereby
quashed and set aside. The original claim petition is directed to be
restored to its original file. The Tribunal is at liberty to proceed with
proceedings in accordance with law.
12. At this stage, learned advocate on record for the petitioner has
submitted that since the claim petition has been revived, appropriate
directions may be issued to the Tribunal to hear the application filed
at Exh.20 in accordance with law. The attention of this Court was
invited to the order dated 08.10.2024 passed below such application,
wherein the Tribunal has not decided the aforesaid application, in view
of return of the claim petition, to be presented before the appropriate
Tribunal by the impugned order.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2884/2025 ORDER DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
13. Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned advocate for
the petitioner and having perused the order dated 08.10.2024 passed
below Exh.1, since original claim petition has been restored, the
Tribunal is directed to decide the aforesaid application afresh strictly
in accordance with law.
14. The certified copy of the order dated 08.10.2024 is permitted
to be replaced at page No.16.
15. With these observation, present petition stands disposed of.
Direct service is permitted.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA
