Rajasthan High Court
Magma General Insurance Company ... vs Rooparam S/O Shri Manaram on 22 August, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:35110]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16810/2023
Magma General Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager,
Having Its Office At Third Floor, Prestige Tower, I-1, Amrapali
Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-302001.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Vinod Kumar S/o Ruparam, Aged About 29 Years,
(Husband Of The Deceased)
2. Ajit S/o Vinod, Aged About 9 Years, (Son Of The
Deceased)
3. Maya D/o Vinod, Aged About 8 Years, (Daughter Of The
Deceased) Claimants No. 2 And 3 Minor Are Represented
Through Legal Guardian Their Father Shri Vinod Kumar.
All R/o Ward No. 10, Dhani Leghan, Kelniya,
Hanumangarh.
4. Prem Kumar S/o Shri Laduram, R/o Dhani Leghan, Tehsil
Rawatsar, Hanumangarh (Driver Of The Vehicle Rj-49-Ra-
1559)
5. Mangilal S/o Shri Roopram, R/o Dhani Leghan, Tehsil
Rawatsar, Hanumangarh (Owner Of The Vehicle Rj-49-Ra-
1559)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16818/2023
Magma General Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager,
Having Its Office At Third Floor, Prestige Tower, 1-1, Amrapali
Circcle, Vaishali Nagar,jaipur - 302001.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rooparam S/o Shri Manaram, Aged About 54 Years,
(Father-In-Law Of The Deceased)
2. Indra W/o Shri Roopram, Aged About 52 Years, (Mothers-
In-Law Of The Deceased)
3. Amit S/o Shri Mangilal, Aged About 9 Years, (Son Of The
Deceased).
4. Mahesh S/o Shri Mangilal, Aged About 4 Years, (Son Of
(Downloaded on 06/09/2024 at 10:08:23 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:35110] (2 of 9) [CW-16810/2023]
The Deceased) All R/o 1 Nayi Tanki Ke Pass, Ward No. 10,
Dhani Leghan,mahela, Hanumangarh
5. Prem Kumar S/o Shri Laduram, R/o Dhani Leghan, Tehsil
Rawatsar, Hanumangarh. (Driver Of The Vehicle Rj-49-Ra-
1559)
6. Mangilal S/o Shri Roopram, R/o Dhani Leghan, Tehsil
Rawatsar, Hanumangarh. (Owner Of The Vehicle Rj-49-
Ra-1559).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16829/2023
Magma General Insurance Company Limited, Through Manager,
Having Its Office At Third Floor, Prestige Tower, I-1, Amrapali
Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur-302001.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Bhanwarlal S/o Ratiram, Aged About 33 Years, (Husband
Of The Deceased)
2. Rahul S/o Bhanwarlal, Aged About 14 Years, (Son Of The
Deceased)
3. Rajesh S/o Bhanwarlal, Aged About 8 Years, (S/o Of The
Deceased), Claimants No. 2 And 3 Minor Are Represented
Through Legal Guardian Their Father Shri Bhanwarlal, All
R/o Ward No. 10, Dhani Leghan, Visrasar, Hanumangarh.
4. Prem Kumar S/o Shri Laduram, R/o Dhani Leghan, Tehsil
Rawatsar, Hanumangarh (Driver Of The Vehicle Rj-49-Ra-
1559)
5. Mangilal S/o Shri Roopram, R/o Dhani Leghan, Tehsil
Rawatsar, Hanumangarh (Owner Of The Vehicle Rj-49-Ra-
1559)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Agrawal
Mr. Prakhar Agrawal
Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shresth Vardhan
Mr. Himanshu Chetani
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
(Downloaded on 06/09/2024 at 10:08:23 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:35110] (3 of 9) [CW-16810/2023]
ORDER
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :: 22/08/2024
The petitioner Magma General Insurance Company Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Insurance Company' for brevity)
has filed these three writ petitions under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the common order dated
21.04.2023 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Motor Accident Claim Case
Nos.460/2022, 461/2022 and 462/2022 whereby the learned
Tribunal has rejected three separate applications under Order 7
Rule 11 CPC filed in each claim case on behalf of petitioner
Insurance Company for dismissing the claim petitions on the
ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the learned tribunal to
try the claim cases.
Since in all these three writ petitions, a common order dated
21.04.2023 is impugned, the same are being decided by this
common order.
Brief facts of the case are that on 05.02.2020, three ladies
namely Manju Devi, Parmeshwari @ Mesri and Draupadi were
going to their agricultural fields from their respective homes and
when they reached Neherrohi Dhani, Pallu, District Hanumangarh,
a tractor No. RJ 49 RA 1559 which was being driven rashly and
negligently by its driver, hit them and as a result of which, all the
three ladies fell in canal and succumbed to injuries. In February,
2020, the dependents of these three deceased ladies filed three
separate claim cases under Section 166/140/149 of the Motor
Vehicles Act before the learned Special Judge, Printing &
Stationary Embezzlement & Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur
(Downloaded on 06/09/2024 at 10:08:23 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:35110] (4 of 9) [CW-16810/2023]
District, Jaipur claiming compensation from the owner, driver and
insurer of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was insured
with the petitioner Insurance Company. After filing claim petitions,
in July, 2021, written submissions were filed on behalf of the
petitioner Insurance Company and same are annexed herewith as
Annexure-3. Thereafter, in September, 2021, issues were framed
in all the three claim cases. Presently, these cases are pending for
recording defence evidence.
On 23.05.2022, the petitioner Insurance Company filed three
separate applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in each claim
case for rejecting the claim petitions on the ground of lack of
territorial jurisdiction of the learned MACT, Jaipur District to try
these cases. The claimants/respondents filed their reply to the
applications and denied the averments made therein. Vide
impugned order dated 21.04.2023, the learned Tribunal dismissed
the applications in light of the observations made by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Malti Sardar v. National Insurance
Company Ltd. & Ors. : (2016) 3 SCC 43. Hence these writ
petitions.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Insurance Company
submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in dismissing
the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and therefore, the
order dated 21.04.2023 may be quashed and claim petitions may
be rejected. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has
misinterpreted the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Malti Sardar (supra). Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the learned Tribunal at Jaipur has no
territorial jurisdiction to try these claim petitions as same is in
(Downloaded on 06/09/2024 at 10:08:23 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:35110] (5 of 9) [CW-16810/2023]
contravention of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. He
submits that the claimant and defendant resides in Hanumangarh
and so also the accident occurred in Hanumangarh. The
Registered Head Office of the Company is situated in Kolkata and
therefore, the learned Tribunal at Jaipur has no jurisdiction to
entertain the claim petitions. Learned counsel also contends that
while interpreting any rule or law, literal rule of interpretation
should be applied if the words of a provision of a statute are clear
and unambiguous. Referring Section 34 of the Consumer
Protection Act, learned counsel submits that in the matters filed
under Consumer Protection Act, jurisdiction may be assumed
through the branch office of Insurance Company, which is
categorically omitted by Legislature and hence, it can be inferred
that the jurisdiction cannot be made through the branch office of
the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the petitioner
Insurance Company places reliance on the following judgments:-
1. Subhadra & Ors. v. Pankaj & Ors. (MFA No.31609/2011,
decided on 07.08.2012 by Karnataka High Court (Gulbarga
Bench): 2013 (3) AKR 553 and
2. Jageshwar Prasad Namdeo v. Kalpana Pathak & Ors. (Misc.
Appeal No.2612/2021, decided on 20.03.2023 by Madhya
Pradesh (Jabalpur Bench) High Court : 2023/MPHC-
JBP/13694
With these submissions, he prays that the writ petitions may
be accepted and the claim petitions filed on behalf of the
respective claims may be rejected for lack of territorial
jurisdiction.
(Downloaded on 06/09/2024 at 10:08:23 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:35110] (6 of 9) [CW-16810/2023]
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants
oppose the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel.
They submit that the learned tribunal has not committed any error
of law in dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner
Insurance Company and it has rightly dismissed the applications.
It is further submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court has unequivocally
observed in the case of Malti Sardar (supra) that
"there exists no bar to a claim petition filed at a place where
the insurance company has its place of business. In such cases,
there is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure to justice."
They contend that this issue of maintainability of the claim
petitions before the MACT, Jaipur on the ground of lack of
territorial jurisdiction should be taken at the very initial stage. But
here in these cases, same has been raised after almost two years
of the filing of the claim petitions and if the petitioner Insurance
Company takes a plea that date of filing of the claim petition is of
no avail to it then too, it has taken more than one year from the
date of filing of written statement, filed on its behalf. It is further
submitted that the petitioner Insurance Company has not uttered
a single word for lack of jurisdiction in the written statement. They
contend that presently, the case is at the stage of recording
defence evidence and thus, it is clear that the trial is at fag end
and if these writ petitions are allowed, serious prejudice would be
caused to the claimants. Learned counsel for the respondents
place reliance on the following judgments:-
1. Malti Sardar v. National Insurance Co. : (2016) 3 SCC 43
2. Balveer Batra v. New India Assurance Co. : C.A. No.1842 of
2024, decided on 08.02.2024
[2024:RJ-JP:35110] (7 of 9) [CW-16810/2023]
I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at
bar and perused the material available on record.
Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is regarding
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to try the claim petitions, it would
be relevant here to refer Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Section 166
of the Act reads as below:-
"Section 166. Application for Compensation
(1)..........................
(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:"
The words of the aforesaid provision is very clear that claim
petition may be filed before the Claim Tribunal which has
jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred; the
claimants reside or carry business or the defendant resides. The
argument of the petitioner's counsel that the registered office of
the Insurance Company is in Kolkata and neither the accident
occurred in Jaipur nor the claimants and defendant resides in
Jaipur and therefore, the MACT, Jaipur does not have any
jurisdiction to try the claim is absolutely frivolous. The phrase
'defendant resides' under Section 166 (2) of the M.V. Act, should
be given an expansive interpretation and it covers the place of
business of Insurer. Does the petitioner Insurance Company have
no office at one of the biggest and metro cities like Jaipur?
Certainly not. As per the pleadings of the writ petitions, it is clear
[2024:RJ-JP:35110] (8 of 9) [CW-16810/2023]
that the Insurance Company has its office all over the country and
thus, in no manner, it would cause any trouble or hardship to the
Insurance Company in defending its cases. Apart from that, the
servicing/issuing office of the insurance policy under which the
claimants are claiming compensation, is Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur and
thus, it cannot be said that the claimants have chosen Jaipur as an
unrelated place for pursuing the claim. The learned tribunal has
rightly dismissed the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in
light of the clear and unambiguous observation made by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Malti Sardar (supra) as per which, there
would be no bar to present a claim petition before a tribunal in
whose jurisdiction, the Insurance Company has its place of
business. Though, it is true that the judgment of Malati Sardar
(supra) was passed after the final award at appellate stage but it
does not mean that the observations made in a broad sense,
regarding filing of claim petition before a tribunal where the
defendant has its place of business, does not apply here in this
case.
So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that if the words of a provision are clear, literal
interpretation should be taken, but in my considered opinion
before interpreting a provision, firstly the intention of law makers
should be taken into consideration. The Motor Vehicles Act is a
beneficial legislation which has been enacted with an object of
facilitating remedies for victims of accidents and therefore, in such
matters, liberal interpretation of the laws, should be made.
Apart from above, the petitioner Insurance Company ought
to have raised this objection of lack of jurisdiction at the very
[2024:RJ-JP:35110] (9 of 9) [CW-16810/2023]
initial stage after completion of service of notice of claim petition,
but it did not do so and after two years of the claim petition, when
the trial is at fag end, it has filed the application seeking rejection
of the claim petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In the
written statement, filed on behalf of the Insurance Company, no
such objection has been raised.
In my considered opinion, any interference at this belated
stage would definitely prejudice the rights of the claimants, who
are said to be the dependents of the deceased. We should not
forget or overlook the object of the M.V. Act wherein the
convenience of the claimants have been given due consideration.
In view of above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the
impugned order dated 21.04.2023. Accordingly, same is affirmed.
The instant writ petitions lack merit and are hereby dismissed.
Stay applications are also disposed of. There is no order as to
costs.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
Lalit Mohan/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
