Kashmir Singh vs Kaushalya Devi And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 9018 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kashmir Singh vs Kaushalya Devi And Ors on 29 April, 2024

Author: Alka Sarin

Bench: Alka Sarin

                        CR No.2133 of 2024                     -1-                   2024:PHHC:057519

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                        138                                            CR No.2133 of 2024
                                                                       Reserved on : 08.04.2024
                                                                       Date of Decision : 29.04.2024


                        Kashmir Singh                                                       ....Petitioner

                                                           VERSUS

                        Kaushalya Devi and Others                                       ....Respondents


                        CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN


                        Present :    Mr. Arnav Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.


                        ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of the order dated

15.02.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') dismissing the application filed by

the petitioner herein for framing of an additional issue.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the claimant-

respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended upto date) for grant of compensation.

During the pendency of the said petition an application was filed by the

petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 read with Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for rejection

of the claim petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The said

application was dismissed vide order dated 11.04.2023. No appeal or

revision was preferred by the petitioner herein challenging the said order.

integrity of this order/judgment

CR No.2133 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:057519

Subsequently, an application was filed by the petitioner herein for framing

of an additional issue qua the territorial jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the

Tribunal does not have jurisdiction and that the petitioner herein had filed

his written statement raising several preliminary objections mainly on the

ground of jurisdiction. It is further the contention that no ground regarding

jurisdiction was framed by the Tribunal and hence the application for

framing of an additional issue. It is further the contention that the finding

returned under Order VII Rule 11 CPC would not be binding on the parties

as the same is against the settled principles of law.

4. Heard.

5. In the present case after the filing of the claim petition an

application was filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC

raising the objection therein that the place of accident was Shimla and the

claimant-respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are also residents of Shimla and

hence the claim petition was not maintainable at Chandigarh. The Tribunal

vide a detailed order dated 11.04.2023 dismissed the application specifically

holding as under :

"6. In the light of Malti Sardar's case (supra), there is

no bar to a claim petition filed at a place where the

insurance company, which is the main contesting party in

such cases, has its business. As there is no denial on part

of respondent No.3 about having its branch office/place

of business at Chandigarh. Thus, this Tribunal has found

force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the

claimants that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at

integrity of this order/judgment

CR No.2133 of 2024 -3- 2024:PHHC:057519

Chandigarh has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the

claim petition in hand. Accordingly, finding no merits in

the application in hand, the same is accordingly

dismissed."

6. Once on an application filed by the petitioner a categoric

finding was returned that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Chandigarh

had jurisdiction, the petitioner by insisting on framing of an additional issue

qua jurisdiction cannot be permitted to get the question of jurisdiction

reopened since the same already stood concluded vide order dated

11.04.2023, which was not challenged by the petitioner further for reasons

best known to him. Having accepted the said order it does not now lie in the

mouth of the petitioner to challenge the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

7. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present

revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if

any, also stand disposed off.

( ALKA SARIN ) 29.04.2024 JUDGE jk

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

integrity of this order/judgment