Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rojamma vs Sri. R.V. Rajesh on 2 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30754
MFA No. 8506 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 8507 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8506 OF 2013 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8507 OF 2013 (MV-I)
IN MFA NO. 8506/2013
BETWEEN:
SHAKEEL,
S/O LATE MUSTAFA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING BEHIND SILK FACTORY,
SHANISHA NAGAR,
KOLAR TOWN-563 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
PRAJWAL A
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA 1. SRI R.V. RAJESH,
S/O VENKATACHALAPATHY,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT NO.246, PATTABBHI RAMAIAH
STREET, OLD EXTENSION, KATARIPALYA,
KOLAR - 563 101.
2. THE RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE NO.28,
5TH FLOOR, EAST WING,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30754
MFA No. 8506 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 8507 of 2013
CENTENARY BUILDING, M G ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO. 3088/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI A.C.M.M & XXIII
A.S.C.J, MACT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO. 8507 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
SMT. ROJAMMA,
W/O LATE VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT 1818-4, PRASHANTHNAGAR,
KOLAR TOWN.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI R.V. RAJESH,
S/O VENKATACHALAPATHY,
MAJOR IN AGE,
R/AT NO.246, PATTABHI RAMAIAH
STEET, OLD EXTENSION, KATARIPALYA,
KOLAR-563 101.
2 . THE RELIANCE GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE NO.28,
5TH FLOOR, EAST WING,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:30754
MFA No. 8506 of 2013
C/W MFA No. 8507 of 2013
CENTENARY BUILDING, M G ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
R-1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.07.2013 PASSED IN MVC
NO.3087/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI A.C.M.M & XXIII
A.S.C.J, MACT, BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
In these two appeals, the appellants/petitioners have
challenged the common judgment dated 17.07.2013
passed in MVC.Nos.3087 and 3088 of 2012 by the XXI
ACMM and XXIII ASCJ, Bengaluru (ACMM 21) in dismissing
the claim petitions on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
2. Heard the arguments of Sri.Gopal Krishna N.,
learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners and
Sri.Ashok N. Patil, learned counsel for respondent
No.2/Insurance Company and perused the records.
NC: 2024:KHC:30754
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
MALATI SARDAR VS. NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. AND OTHERS1, regarding jurisdiction of
the Tribunal. In para 14 of the said judgment, Apex Court
laid down that the claim petition is maintainable within the
jurisdiction where the Insurance Company is also located.
Para 14 reads as under:
"14. The Provision in question, in the present
case, is 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 (AIR 2009 SC 1022) (supra), contrary
view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The
High Court failed to notice the provision of Section 21
CPC."
AIR 2016 SC 247
NC: 2024:KHC:30754
4. The petitioners have filed the claim petitions
under Section under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act
seeking compensation on the ground that there was an
accident between the Auto rickshaw in which they were
traveling with the Tempo Trax bearing No.KA-07-M-1636.
Before the Tribunal, claim was opposed by the Insurance
Company.
5. The Tribunal framed the following issues:
"1) whether the petitioner proves that, he sustained injuries
on 8.1.2012 at about 8.30 p.m. due to rash or negligent
driving of the Tempo Trax bearing Reg.No: KA-07: M-1636
by its driver on APMC market, Malur Zig zag, Kolar Town?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so,
what is it quantum? From whom payable?
3) What order or award?"
Additional Issue framed on 4.12.2012:
Whether this tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to try this
case?"
6. The Tribunal did not go in detail about the issue
Nos.1 to 3, it has framed the additional issue on
NC: 2024:KHC:30754
04.12.2012 and treated it as a preliminary issue and
recorded the finding that the Tribunal has no territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions.
7. On perusal of the cause-title, it is pertinent to
note that both the petitioners-claimants are residents of
Kolar town, respondent No.1-owner of Tempo Trax and is
a resident of Kolar, whereas the Insurance Company is
located at Bengaluru. In view of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court referred supra, the Tribunal has
jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions. There is no
need to go in detail about the merit of the case as the
Tribunal did not consider the claim on merits. Hence, both
the appeals are fit for remand. In the result, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The appeals are hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and decree is set
aside.
NC: 2024:KHC:30754
iii) The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to take
the case to the stage of the evidence, allow the parties to
lead the evidence and decide the claims on merit in
accordance with law.
iv) All contentions of the parties are kept open.
v) Without further notice, parties shall appear
before the Tribunal on 28.08.2024.
SD/-
(T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA)
JUDGE
NR/-
