Rinarani Behuria & vs Sumant Barik & Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 13435 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                             W.P.(C) No.13633 of 2023


              Rinarani Behuria &                      ....           Petitioners
              another

                                     Mr. B.N. Rath,
                                     Advocate

                                           -versus-
              Sumant Barik & another                  .... Opposite Parties

                                     Mr. B.K. Sahoo, Advocate
                                     (For Opposite Party No.2)

                CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

            Date of Hearing : 05.10.2023              Date of Order: 31.10.2023

Order No.
                                           ORDER

03. The preset Writ Petition has been preferred with the

following prayers:

"The Petitioners humbly pray that for the interest of justice the present writ application be admitted, after calling for the show cause from the Opp. Parties and after hearing all the parties concerned, this Hon'ble Court would graciously be pleased to quash the Judgment/order passed under Annexure-5 and further appropriate writ/writs be issued directing the Learned Addl.

District Judge-cum-3rd M.A.C.T., Jharsuguda to entertain the claim application of the petitioners vide Annexure-1 and to dispose of the same on its own merit on the basis of the evidence adduced before him by all the parties concerned;

And/or this Hon'ble Court may pass such other order/orders as it deems just and proper giving suitable relied to the petitioners."

(Emphasis supplied)

2. Though notices were issued to the Opposite Parties, no

Counter Affidavit has been filed opposing to the prayer, as

detailed above. A query being made, Mr. Shoo, learned Counsel

for the contesting Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the

impugned being an Award passed by the Claims Tribunal, no

Counter Affidavit is necessary as the Writ Petition is not

maintainable.

3. Mr. Rath, leaned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted,

though the impugned is an order, but the same has been styled

as Judgment. The Tribunal, instead of answering all the issues,

only answered Issue No.1 as to territorial jurisdiction and

ordered that it lacks jurisdiction to decide the Claim Petition.

While ordering to return the claim petition, it granted liberty to

the Petitioner to file the same before the competent Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction. Hence, the

present Writ Petition is maintainable.

4. On examination, it is found that after completion of

pleadings and recording evidences of the parties, the impugned

Judgment was passed in M.A.C. Case No.43 of 2020. The

Additional District Judge-Cum-3rd M.A.C.T., Jharsuguda, based

on pleadings and evidences on record, though framed several

issues, only answered Issue No.1 in negative against the

Petitioners with regard to lack of territorial jurisdiction. As the

said issue was answered against the Claimants/Petitioners, the

Court below thought it prudent not to answer rest of the issues.

Hence, this Court is of the view that the Petitioners ought to

have preferred an Appeal in terms of Section-173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award passed under

Section-168 of the said Act, 1988, instead of preferring the

present writ petition.

5. However, to save the claimants/petitioners from further

adversity, without dismissing the writ petition on technical

ground of maintainability, let the present Writ Petition be

registered as M.A.C.A. After it is so reregistered, fresh S.R. be

made and the matter be listed before the bench having

assignment, when moved.

(S.K. Mishra) Judge

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Prasant Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 02-Nov-2023 16:50:26