Karnataka High Court
Sri K V Srinath vs Sri K N Anjaneya Reddy on 7 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44313
MFA No. 376 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 376 OF 2016 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K. V. SRINATH,
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT NO.776,28TH MAIN ROAD,
B.T.M. LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-560 078.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. JAGADISH G. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GOPAL KRISHNA N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. K. N. ANJANEYA REDDY,
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT KADIRENAHALLI VILLAGE,
Digitally signed
PAPATHIMMANAHALLI POST,
by VINUTHA B S CHINTAMANI TALUK,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S. ESWARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. H. M. GOPAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.06.2015 PASSED IN
MVC NO.1898/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IX ADDITIONAL
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXXIV ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-7,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE
PETITION AS NOT MAINTAINABLE.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44313
MFA No. 376 of 2016
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.Jagadish.G.Kumbar, learned counsel who
argued on behalf of Sri.Gopal Krishna.N, learned counsel
on record for the appellant. Also heard Sri.Eswara Reddy,
learned counsel who argued on behalf of Sri.H.M.Gopal,
learned counsel on record for the respondent.
2. Challenge in this appeal is the order that is
rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Bengaluru in MVC No.1898/2014 dated 09.06.2015.
3. The appellant filed a petition claiming
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained
by him in a road traffic accident. The said case stood
dismissed by the Tribunal solely on the ground that it has
no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
4. Arguing in that regard, learned counsel for the
appellant states that the appellant was working at
Bengaluru by the date of accident. Learned counsel
NC: 2023:KHC:44313
submits that though in proof of his residence, the
appellant produced Ex.P7 notarized copy of the identity
card issued by Election Commission of India and Ex.P8
notarized copy of Driving License which reveals his
residential particulars, the Tribunal failed to consider those
documents. Learned counsel states that without any proof
being produced, the Tribunal accepted the version of the
respondent that the appellant is resident of Kadirenahalli
Village, Chinthamani Taluk. Learned counsel states that
ultimately giving a finding that it has not territorial
jurisdiction to deal with the matter, dismissed the claim
petition which is most unjustifiable and therefore, the
present appeal is filed.
5. Per contra, the submission of the learned
counsel for the respondent is that the appellant is
permanent resident of Kadirenahalli Village of Chinthamani
Taluk. Learned counsel states as all the relevant record
goes to show that the appellant is permanent resident of
Kadirenahalli Village, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the
NC: 2023:KHC:44313
claim application as it had no jurisdiction to deal with the
matter and therefore, the order of the Tribunal needs no
interference.
6. When chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 deals with the Claims Tribunal, Section 165 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after be referred as 'the
Act 1988' for brevity) deals with the establishment of
Claims Tribunals and the qualification for appointment of
members of the Claims Tribunal. Section 166 of the Act
deals with the persons who are entitled to move an
application for compensation. As regards to jurisdiction,
Section 166(2) of the Act reads as under:
166(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.
7. Thus by the above provision it is clear that
every application that is filed under Section 166(1) of the
NC: 2023:KHC:44313
Act should be filed at the option of the claimant either
before the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the
area in which the accident occurred or before the Claims
Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
claimant resides or carries on business or before the
Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
the defendant resides.
8. In the case on hand the version of the appellant
is that he was residing at House No.766, 28th main road,
BTM Layout II Stage, Bengaluru by the date of accident. In
proof of the same, the appellant produced Ex.P7 which is
the attested copy of the identity card issued by Election
Commission of India. The said document reveals that by
the date of issue of the said identity card i.e., by
24.04.2008 he was residing House No.766, 28th main
road, BTM Layout II Stage, Bengaluru. Also Ex.P8 which is
the attested copy of the driving license which was issued
on 03.03.2008 reveals the same address particulars as
regards to the appellant. Though the learned counsel for
NC: 2023:KHC:44313
the respondent brought to the notice of this Court the
address particulars as mentioned in the relevant medical
records, learned counsel for the appellant states that the
appellant has got a house and is permanent resident of
Kadirenahalli Village of Chinthamani Taluk. Learned
counsel for the appellant further submits that immediately
after the accident he was taken care of by his relatives
and thus the permanent address particulars were
mentioned both in the medical records as well as in the
police records.
9. It cannot be said that Ex.P7 - identity card that
was issued by Election Commission of India and Ex.P8 -
driving license were concocted by the appellant way back
in the year 2008 for filing the claim application at
Bengaluru for the accident that would occur in the year
2013. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the stand
taken by the Tribunal is highly unjustifiable. Having
considered the contents of Ex.P7 and stating that it
disclose that the appellant is resident of Bengaluru, the
NC: 2023:KHC:44313
Tribunal held that it has no jurisdiction to deal with the
matter. Such finding is not in consonance with the
mandate of law more particularly Section 166(2) of the
Act.
10. Therefore, this Court considers desirable to
allow the appeal as prayed for.
11. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed.
The order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.1898/2014 dated
09.06.2015 regarding the aspect of jurisdiction is set
aside.
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru is
having jurisdiction to deal with the matter. With such a
finding the case is remanded back to the same Tribunal to
deal with the other issues and decide the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NS
CT:TSM
