Karnataka High Court
Shahajan @ S.K.Shajahan vs Ajay Dodiya on 8 March, 2022
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
M.F.A. NO.3902 OF 2019 (MV-INJ)
BETWEEN:
SHAHAJAN @ S.K.SHAJAHAN
@ SHEIK SHAJAHAN
S/O ABDUL KHADAR
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/O.HORAPET
NEAR BASAVESHWARA TALKIES
CHITRADURGA - 577 501
.. APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. AJAY DODIYA
S/O.AMAR SINGH DODIYA
OWNER OF LORRY BEARING
REG NO.WP-09 GF 8125
R/O.NO.254, NAGIR NAGAR
SECTOR-B, INDORE- 452 001
MADHYA PRADESH
NOW R/O 505, SHAGUN BUILDING
PLOT NO.7, PU 4 COMMERCIAL
SCHEME NO.54, VIJAYANAGAR
SQUARE, INDORE
MADHYA PRADESH - 452 010
2. BRANCH MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BRANCH OFFICE, MAGANUR
BASAPPA COMPLEX
NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND
CHITRADURGA - 577 501
... RESPONDENTS
(R1 IS SD; BY SRI L.SREEKANTA RAO, ADV. FOR R-
2)
***
2
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 07.11.2018 PASSED IN M.V.C NO.1060/2017 BY
THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL
MACT-IV, AT CHITRADURGA AND AWARD JUST AND
PROPER COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this matter is listed for admission, with the
consent of both the learned counsel the same is taken up
for final disposal.
2. Heard learned counsel Mr. B.Pramod, learned
counsel for appellant and learned counsel Mr. L.Sreekanta
Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. This is an appeal preferred by the claimant
being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
07.11.2018 passed in MVC No. 1060/2017 by the I Addl.
Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Chithradurga.
4. Brief Facts:
On 18.04.2017 at about 2.30 am (midnight) when
the claimant was working as a cleaner in lorry bearing
Registration No.KA-01 D-3638 and while checking the lorry
tyre near Bhotappanagudi Temple, NH-4 Road, Hiriyur
Taluk on the left side of the road, the driver of lorry bearing
Registration No. MP-09 GF-8125 drove it in a rash and
negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the lorry
which was parked on the left side of the road and also
against the claimant thereby causing injuries to the person
and body of the claimant. Due to the said accident
claimant sustained injuries and he was shifted to hospital
where he took treatment as an inpatient and incurred
medical expenses.
5. It is the case of the claimant that the accident
occurred due to sole negligence and rash driving by the
driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. MP-09 GF-8125.
The accident occurred within the jurisdiction of Imangala
Police Station, Hiriyur. In view of the accident having been
caused by the respondent No.1 due to rash and negligent
manner of driving of the lorry and injuries having been
suffered by the claimant, the claimant preferred a claim
petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation.
6. On service of notice, the respondent No.2 - the
Insurance company, appeared and filed its statement of
objections. It denied the claim made by the claimant, inter
alia, also took up a plea that the accident occurred due to
the fault of the claimant and contended that the respondent
No.1 - rider of the motor cycle was not holding a valid
driving license as on the date of accident. It is contended
that the negligence was on the part of the claimant.
Further, it denied the avocation of the claimant. In view of
the additional objection filed by the respondent No.2 -
Insurer that there is no jurisdiction to the Tribunal to
entertain the claim petition, additional issue with regard to
whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim
petition came to be framed. Hence, denied the liability on
itself to pay the compensation and sought for dismissal of
the claim petition.
7. On the basis of the pleading the Tribunal
framed relevant issues.
8. In order to prove and establish his case, the
claimant got examined himself as PW1 and got marked
Ex.P1 to P13.
9. The respondent No.2 - Insurer examined one of
its Officer as RW1, he relied on two documents at Ex.R1
and R2.
10. After hearing both sides and providing sufficient
opportunity to both parties and also on examination of the
material evidence both oral and documentary. the Tribunal
to decide on the issues framed, more so, with regard to the
additional issue of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain
the claim petition, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition
by holding that there is no jurisdiction for the Tribunal to
entertain the claim petition preferred by the claimant.
However, it further held that dismissal of the claim petition
would not preclude the claimant from filing proper claim
petition before the Tribunal.
11. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and award of
the Tribunal, the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking
to set aside the impugned judgment and award.
12. The learned counsel for claimant contends that
the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is
erroneous in law and also under facts and circumstances of
the case. He further contends that the Tribunal has
misdirected itself and not considered the provisions of law
and erred in coming to the conclusion that merely because
of claimant is not residing at Chithradurga, the Tribunal is
not having jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. It is
only on this ground that claimant is not residing at
Chithradurga the claim petition came to be dismissed.
13. learned counsel for the claimant further
contends that as per Section 166(2) of Motor Vehicle Act,
1988, the jurisdiction for filing the claim petition would
arise even at the place of occurrence of accident and so
also within the local limits in jurisdiction the claimant
resides or carries on business or within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction of the respondent resides and shall be in
such form and contain such particulars as may be
prescribed. He further contends that in view of the same it
is apparently clear that Tribunal has jurisdiction to
entertain the claim petition in whose jurisdiction accident
occurred. In the present case on hand, the Tribunal has
erred in not considering the same. Accordingly, the
judgment and award passed by the Tribunal requires to be
set aside and matter requires to be remanded for
consideration of the claim petition.
14. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. L. Sreekanta
Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Insurer fairly
concedes and submits that he is in agreement of
proposition of law as contemplated under Section 162 (2)
of MV Act. He further contends that even according to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court the claim petition could
be entertained by the Tribunal even if Branch Office of the
Insurer is situated within the judgment of the Tribunal.
The said submission of the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 - Insurer is placed on record and
appreciated by this Court.
15. The point that would arise for consideration
before this Court is that 'without going into the merits of
the case whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain
the claim petition on hand?
16. Admittedly, the accident is said to have been
occurred within the local limits of Hiriyur Taluk within the
jurisdiction of Chithradurga District coming within the
jurisdiction of JMfC & Addl. MACT. Learned counsel for
claimant produced ex.P1 - FIR, wherein it is clear that
accident has occurred near Bhothappanagudi Temple on
NH-4 road, Hiriyur Taluk on 18.04.2017. This being the
facts of the case, it is not in dispute even according to the
judgment of the Tribunal it is well within the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal and judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is erroneous in law.
17. To consider the question involved it is relevant
to extract Section 166(2) of the MV Act, which reads as
under:
"(2) Every application under sub-section (1)
shall be made, at the option of the claimant,
either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction
over the area in which the accident occurred,
or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits
of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or
carries on business or within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and
shall be in such form and contain such
particulars as may be prescribed:"
18. In the present case on hand, admittedly the
accident has occurred within the limits of Hiriyur taluk
coming under the jurisdiction of Chithradurga District within
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in question. Hence, the
Tribunal would certainly have jurisdiction to entertain the
claim petition. The Tribunal has mis-directed itself by not
applying the principles to consider the fact that place of
occurrence of the accident and has mis-guided itself to hold
that claimant is not residing within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal, namely at Chithradurga. In view of the fact that
claimant was not residing within the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that claim
petition could not be entertained by it and dismissed the
same.
19. In view of the submissions made by the learned
counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the
provisions of law under Section 166(2) of the MV act, I am
of the opinion that the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is not sustainable in law and the same deserves to
be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration of the
matter on merits by providing opportunity to both the
parties to adduce evidence, if any, and thereafter pass a
detailed order on merits in accordance with law.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed;
ii) Consequently, the judgment and award dated
07.11.2018 passed in MVC No. 1060/2017 by
the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT,
Chithradurga, is set aside;
iii) The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal
for fresh consideration of the case on merits;
iv) Both the parties shall appear before the
Tribunal along with their respective counsel
on 8th April 2022 without awaiting further
notice either from this Court or from Tribunal.
v) The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter
expeditiously after providing opportunity to
both the parties;
vi) The parties shall co-operate with the Tribunal
in disposal of the case;
vii) It is made clear that this court has not
expressed any opinion with regard to the
merits of the matter and all contention of the
parties are kept open.
viii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VK
