Madras High Court
K.Nageshwari vs The Managing Director on 5 November, 2025
CRP No.354 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No.354 of 2025
1.K.Nageshwari
2.K.Shobiya
3.K.Shobika
4.K.Sharathi
5.Valliyammal
6.Perumal ... Petitioners
Vs
1. The Managing Director,
TNSTC (Madurai Region),
Virudhunagar.
2. The Manager,
TNSTC (Madurai Region),
Virudhunagar,
Koyambedu Moffusal Bus Stand,
Chennai-600 107. ... Respondents
Revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the
fair and final orders dated 19.12.2024 passed in MCOP No.5907 of 2022 on
the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai (Chief Judge, Court of
Small Causes), Chennai.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Sudhakar
For Mr.R.Nalliyappan
For Respondents : Ms.K.Sathyabama
Standing Counsel for R.1
R.2 – Not ready in notice
ORDER
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 01:25:13 pm )
Heard Mr.K.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Ms.K.Sathyabama, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent
Transport Corporation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though the
respondents submitted to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal before the Chennai
Courts and the Original Petition having been filed in the year 2022, suo-
motu, the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, by order dated
19.12.2024 finding that the petitioners are only residents of Dindigul and that
no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at
Chennai, proceeded to dismiss MCOP No.5907 of 2022, granting liberty to
the petitioners to file a fresh claim petition before the jurisdictional Tribunal.
This said order is under challenge in this revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents had
not raised any objection regarding jurisdiction in the counter affidavit, and
much water has flown and thereafter the trial has also commenced in MCOP
No.5907 of 2022 and even cross examination of P.W.1 is completed Inviting
my attention to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, learned counsel
for the petitioners contends that the only defence raised in the counter is only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 01:25:13 pm )
in respect of quantum and therefore, he submits that no prejudice would be
caused to the respondents especially when they have not raised any objection
regarding the place of jurisdiction. Learned counsel would also rely on the
judgment of this Court in CMA No.1085 of 2024 dated 19.06.2025 in the
case of Subramani vs Muthuraj, wherein this Court relying on the decision
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malati Sardar vs National
Insurance Co.Ltd & Others reported in 2016 TNMAC 1 SC, where the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions of the Act are to be
interpreted in a benevolent manner for the victims of the accidents of
negligent driving and the provision of territorial jurisdiction also has to be
interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims
of accidents and hyper-technical approach in such matters can hardly be
appreciated.
4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent would
however state that the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes has rightly found
that the respondents are also not having their registered office within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Chennai and admittedly, even in the
claim petition, the petitioners themselves have not stated that they reside
within the jurisdiction of Chennai Courts and in such circumstances, there is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 01:25:13 pm )
no infirmity in the order passed by the Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes
warranting interference.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel on either side.
6. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
respondents have not raised the plea of jurisdiction and objected to the same
at the earliest instance viz., in the counter statement filed and by participating
in the trial, cross examining PW1 as well, the respondents have clearly
submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court. There is no embargo for the claim
for compensation being made at the place where the claimants reside. It is the
case of the petitioners that the claimants are all now residing in Maduravoyal.
7. I find from the claim petition that petition has been filed on the
strength of the second respondent having office within the jurisdiction of this
Court. The Registry has not raised any objection regarding the
maintainability of the petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at
Chennai. Further, as already discussed, the respondents have also not
objected to the same at any point of time. Under such circumstances, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 01:25:13 pm )
Court, suo-motu ought not to have put jurisdiction against the claimants and
dismissed the petition. Considering the fact that the trial has already
commenced and P.W.1 has already been cross examined, any hyper-technical
approach would only defeat substantial justice at this stage and cause serious
prejudice to the parties.
8. In the light of the above, the order passed by the learned Chief
Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai in MCOP No.5907 of 2022 dated
19.12.2024 is set aside and the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes,
Chennai is directed to continue with the trial of MCOP No.5907 of 2022 and
dispose of the same on merits and in accordance with law within a period of
six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is allowed. No
costs.
03.11.2025
Index:yes/no
Website:yes/no
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
sr
P.B.BALAJI.,J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 01:25:13 pm )
sr
To
The Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes
05.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/11/2025 01:25:13 pm )
