Karnataka High Court
Priti D/O Sabu Kattimani vs Gurunath S/O Siddaramappa Karajagikar ... on 28 March, 2023
-1-
MFA No. 201353 of 2016
C/W MFA Nos.201342/2016; 201345/2016;
201346/2016; 201347 of 2016; 201349/2016;
201350/2016; 201351/2016; 201352/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201353 OF 2016 (MV-I)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201342 OF 2016
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201345 OF 2016
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201346 OF 2016
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201347 OF 2016
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201349 OF 2016
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201350 OF 2016
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201351 OF 2016
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201352 OF 2016
MFA NO.201353/2016
BETWEEN:
PRITI D/O SABU KATTIMANI
AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
REPTD.BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN / MOTHER
NAMELY MAHADEVI W/O SABU KATTIMANI
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O SANKH TQ.JATH
DIST.SANGLI-416416
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed by
RAMESH (BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
MATHAPATI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
AND:
1. GURUNATH S/O SIDDARAMAPPA KARAJAGIKAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O KARAJAL TQ.AKKALKOT
DIST.SOLAPUR-41301
2. THE MANAGER THE NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE CO.LTD
GURUKUL ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101
3. SHRIRANG S/O PANDURANG THORATH
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/OWNER
OF TRACTOR R/O BAHE TQ.WAIVA
-2-
MFA No. 201353 of 2016
C/W MFA Nos.201342/2016; 201345/2016;
201346/2016; 201347 of 2016; 201349/2016;
201350/2016; 201351/2016; 201352/2016
DIST.SANGLI-416416
4. THE MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD
GURUKUL ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4;
NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
R3-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/O. 173(1) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED IN
MVC NO.931/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE VIJAYAPURA AND GRANT COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.201342/2016
BETWEEN:
SOMALING S/O SHANKREPPA HONAMARE
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O BHIVARAGI TQ. JATH
DIST.SANGLI-416416
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GURUNATH S/O SIDDARAMAPPA KARAJAGIKAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O KARAJAL TQ.AKKALKOT
DIST.SOLAPUR-41301
2. THE MANAGER THE NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE CO. LTD
GURUKUL ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101
3. SHRIRANG S/O PANDURANG THORATH
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/OWNER
OF TRACTOR R/O BAHE TQ.WAIVA
DIST.SANGLI-416416
4. THE MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD
-3-
MFA No. 201353 of 2016
C/W MFA Nos.201342/2016; 201345/2016;
201346/2016; 201347 of 2016; 201349/2016;
201350/2016; 201351/2016; 201352/2016
GURUKUL ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
R2 & R3 ARE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/. 173(1) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED IN MVC
NO.922/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE VIJAYAPURA AND GRANT COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.201345/2016
BETWEEN:
SHANKREPPA S/O SOMALING HONAMARE
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O BHIVARAGI TQ. JATH
DIST.SANGLI-416416
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GURUNATH S/O SIDDARAMAPPA KARAJAGIKAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O KARAJAL TQ.AKKALKOT
DIST.SOLAPUR-413301
2. THE MANAGER THE NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE CO. LTD
GURUKUL ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101
3. SHRIRANG S/O PANDURANG THORATH
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/OWNER
OF TRACTOR R/O BAHE TQ.WAIVA
DIST.SANGLI-416416
4. THE MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD
GURUKUL ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101
...RESPONDENTS
-4-
MFA No. 201353 of 2016
C/W MFA Nos.201342/2016; 201345/2016;
201346/2016; 201347 of 2016; 201349/2016;
201350/2016; 201351/2016; 201352/2016
(BY SRI S. S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED IN
MVC NO.923/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE VIJAYAPURA AND GRANT COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.201346/2016
BETWEEN:
PINKI D/O SABU KATTIMANI
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
REPTD.BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN / MOTHER
NAMELY MAHADEVI W/O SABU KATTIMANI
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O SANKH TQ.JATH
DIST.SANGLI-416416
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GURUNATH S/O SIDDARAMAPPA KARAJAGIKAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O KARAJAL TQ.AKKALKOT
DIST.SOLAPUR-41301
2. THE MANAGER THE NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE CO.LTD
GURUKUL ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101
3. SHRIRANG S/O PANDURANG THORATH
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/OWNER
OF TRACTOR R/O BAHE TQ.WAIVA
DIST.SANGLI-416416
4. THE MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD
GURUKUL ROAD, BIJAPUR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
-5-
MFA No. 201353 of 2016
C/W MFA Nos.201342/2016; 201345/2016;
201346/2016; 201347 of 2016; 201349/2016;
201350/2016; 201351/2016; 201352/2016
NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT
R4-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED IN
MVC NO.924/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE VIJAYAPURA AND GRANT COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.201347/2016
BETWEEN:
MAHADEVI W/O SABU KATTIMANI
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O SANKH TQ. JATH
DIST.SANGLI-416416
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GURUNATH S/O SIDDARAMAPPA KARAJAGIKAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O KARAJAL TQ.AKKALKOT
DIST.SOLAPUR-413301
2. THE MANAGER THE NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE CO. LTD
GURUKUL ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101
3. SHRIRANG S/O PANDURANG THORATH
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/OWNER
OF TRACTOR R/O BAHE TQ.WAIVA
DIST.SANGLI-416416
4. THE MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD
GURUKUL ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4;
NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
-6-
MFA No. 201353 of 2016
C/W MFA Nos.201342/2016; 201345/2016;
201346/2016; 201347 of 2016; 201349/2016;
201350/2016; 201351/2016; 201352/2016
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED IN
MVC NO.925/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE VIJAYAPURA AND GRANT COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.201349/2016
BETWEEN:
SMT. SALUBAI W/O SHIVLING WANMARATHE
AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O SANKH TQ. JATH
DIST.SANGLI-416416
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GURUNATH S/O SIDDARAMAPPA KARAJAGIKAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O KARAJAL TQ.AKKALKOT
DIST.SOLAPUR-413301
2. THE MANAGER THE NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE CO. LTD
GURUKUL ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101
3. SHRIRANG S/O PANDURANG THORATH
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/OWNER
OF TRACTOR R/O BAHE TQ.WAIVA
DIST.SANGLI-416416
4. THE MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD
GURUKUL ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101
...RESPONDENTS
-7-
MFA No. 201353 of 2016
C/W MFA Nos.201342/2016; 201345/2016;
201346/2016; 201347 of 2016; 201349/2016;
201350/2016; 201351/2016; 201352/2016
(BY SRI S. S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
R4-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED IN
MVC NO.927/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE VIJAYAPURA AND GRANT COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.201350/2016
BETWEEN:
SMT. GANGABAI W/O SWAMILING WANMARATH
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O SANKH TQ. JATH
DIST.SANGLI-416416
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GURUNATH S/O SIDDARAMAPPA KARAJAGIKAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O KARAJAL TQ.AKKALKOT
DIST.SOLAPUR-413301
2. THE MANAGER THE NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE CO. LTD
GURUKUL ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101
3. SHRIRANG S/O PANDURANG THORATH
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/OWNER
OF TRACTOR R/O BAHE TQ.WAIVA
DIST.SANGLI-416416
4. THE MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD
GURUKUL ROAD, BIJAPUR-586101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
R3 & R4 ARE SERVED)
-8-
MFA No. 201353 of 2016
C/W MFA Nos.201342/2016; 201345/2016;
201346/2016; 201347 of 2016; 201349/2016;
201350/2016; 201351/2016; 201352/2016
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED IN
MVC NO.928/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE VIJAYAPURA AND GRANT COMPENSATION.
MFA NO.201351/2016
BETWEEN:
CHOTU @ DHAREPPA D/O SABU KATTIMANI
AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
REPTD. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN / MOTHER
NAMELY MAHADEVI W/O SABU KATTIMANI
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O SANKH TQ.JATH, DIST.SANGLI-416416
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GURUNATH S/O SIDDARAMAPPA KARAJAGIKAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O KARAJAL TQ.AKKALKOT
DIST.SOLAPUR-413301
2. THE MANAGER THE NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE CO.LTD, GURUKUL ROAD,
BIJAPUR-586101
3. SHRIRANG S/O PANDURANG THORATH
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/OWNER
OF TRACTOR R/O BAHE TQ.WAIVA
DIST.SANGLI-416416
4. THE MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD
GURUKUL ROAD, BIJAPUR-5586101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4;
NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
R3-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED IN
MVC NO.929/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE VIJAYAPURA AND GRANT COMPENSATION.
-9-
MFA No. 201353 of 2016
C/W MFA Nos.201342/2016; 201345/2016;
201346/2016; 201347 of 2016; 201349/2016;
201350/2016; 201351/2016; 201352/2016
MFA NO.201352/2016
BETWEEN:
SABU S/O DHARMANNA KATTIMANI
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O SANKH TQ. JATH
DIST.SANGLI-416416
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GURUNATH S/O SIDDARAMAPPA KARAJAGIKAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O KARAJAL TQ.AKKALKOT
DIST.SOLAPUR-413301
2. THE MANAGER THE NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE CO. LTD
GURUKUL ROAD, BIJAPUR-586101
3. SHRIRANG S/O PANDURANG THORATH
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE/OWNER
OF TRACTOR R/O BAHE TQ.WAIVA
DIST.SANGLI-416416
4. THE MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD
GURUKUL ROAD, BIJAPUR-586101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. S. ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R4;
NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
R3-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 173(1) OF CPC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.10.2015 PASSED IN
MVC NO.930/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE VIJAYAPURA AND GRANT COMPENSATION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
- 10 -
MFA No. 201353 of 2016
C/W MFA Nos.201342/2016; 201345/2016;
201346/2016; 201347 of 2016; 201349/2016;
201350/2016; 201351/2016; 201352/2016
JUDGMENT
Though these appeals are listed for orders, with the consent of both counsel, they are taken up for final disposal.
2. All these above appeals are arising out of common judgment passed by the IV-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Vijayapura (for short 'the Tribunal'), in MVC Nos.922/2014 to 925/2014 & 927/2014 to 931/2014, dated 31.10.2015.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the Tribunal.
4. The Tribunal has observed that as it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain these MVC Nos.922/2014 to 925/2014 & 927/2014 to 931/2014 and passed this judgment. The operative portion of the order reads as under:
"The claim petitions filed by the petitioners in MVC No.922/2014 to 925/2014 & 927/2014 to 931/2014 under Section 166 of M.V.Act are not maintainable before this Court, as this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain or try these petitions.
Office is directed to return the claim petitions to the petitioners with a direction to present the
- 11 -MFA No. 201353 of 2016
C/W MFA Nos.201342/2016; 201345/2016; 201346/2016; 201347 of 2016; 201349/2016; 201350/2016; 201351/2016; 201352/2016 same before the competent jurisdictional claims Tribunal situated in Maharashtra State.
Liberty is given to the petitioners of all the nine petitions to file an application praying for necessary order in terms of the provision contained in Order VII Rule 10-A CPC."
5. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners submitted his argument that, respondent No.2/New India insurance company has its branch office at Vijayapura. As per Section 166(2) of the M.V.Act, 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. Therefore, Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain these petitions in view of Section 166(2) of the M.V.Act.
6. To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
- 12 -
MFA No. 201353 of 2016C/W MFA Nos.201342/2016; 201345/2016; 201346/2016; 201347 of 2016; 201349/2016; 201350/2016; 201351/2016; 201352/2016 of Malati Sardar vs National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2016(3) SCC 43 wherein at para 11 to 15 observed as under:
"11. In Mantoo Sarkar (Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited), the insurance company had a branch at Nainital. Accident took place outside the jurisdiction of Nainital Tribunal. The claimant remained in the hospital at Bareilly and thereafter shifted to Pilibhit where he was living for a long time. However, at the time of filing of the claim petition he was working as a labourer in Nainital District. The High Court took the view that Nainital Tribunal had no jurisdiction and reversed the view taken by the Tribunal to the effect that since the office of the insurance company was at Nainital, the Tribunal had the jurisdiction. This Court reversed the view of the High Court. It was held that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was wider than the civil court. The Tribunal could follow the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Having regard to Section 21 CPC, objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction could not be entertained in absence of any prejudice. Distinction was required to be drawn between a jurisdiction with regard to subject matter on the one hand and that of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction on the other. A judgment may be nullity in the former category, but not in the later. Reference was also made to earlier decision of this Court in Kiran Singh vs. Chaman Paswan to the following effect :
"With reference to objections relating to territorial jurisdiction, Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code enacts that no objection to the place of suing should be allowed by an appellate or revisional court, unless there was a consequent failure of justice. It is the same AIR 1954 SC 340 principle that has been adopted in Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act with reference to pecuniary jurisdiction. The policy underlying Sections 21 and 99 CPC and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is the same, namely, that when a case had been tried by a court on the merits and judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it had resulted in failure of justice, and the policy of the
- 13 -MFA No. 201353 of 2016
C/W MFA Nos.201342/2016; 201345/2016; 201346/2016; 201347 of 2016; 201349/2016; 201350/2016; 201351/2016; 201352/2016 legislature has been to treat objections to jurisdiction both territorial and pecuniary as technical and not open to consideration by an appellate court, unless there has been a prejudice on the merits. The contention of the appellants, therefore, that the decree and judgment of the District Court, Monghyr, should be treated as a nullity cannot be sustained under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act.' "
12. We are thus of the view that in the face of judgment of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra), the High Court was not justified in setting aside the award of the Tribunal in absence of any failure of justice even if there was merit in the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, the fact remained that the insurance company which was the main contesting respondent had its business at Kolkata.
13. Reliance placed on decisions of this Court in G.S. Grewal and Jagmittar Sain Bhagat is misplaced. In G.S. Grewal, the subject matter of dispute was not covered by the definition of "service matters"
under Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and on that ground, it was held that the Armed Forces Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter. Thus, it was a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. Similarly in Jagmittar Sain Bhagat, the claimant before the Consumer Protection Forum was found not be a "consumer" under Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and on that ground the order of the consumer forum was held to be without jurisdiction. The said cases did not deal with the issue of territorial jurisdiction.
14. The provision in question, in the present case, is a 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 (supra), contrary view
- 14 -
MFA No. 201353 of 2016C/W MFA Nos.201342/2016; 201345/2016; 201346/2016; 201347 of 2016; 201349/2016; 201350/2016; 201351/2016; 201352/2016 taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court failed to notice the provision of Section 21 CPC.
15. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the award of the Tribunal."
7. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 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. Hence, observation made in the aforesaid judgment and keeping in mind the Section 166(2) of the M.V.Act, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal-MACT,Vijayapura has got jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions filed by the petitioners in MVC Nos.922/2014 to 925/2014 & 927/2014 to 931/2014. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeals are allowed.
(ii) The order dated 31.10.2015 in MVC Nos.922/2014 to 925/2014 & 927/2014 to
- 15 -MFA No. 201353 of 2016
C/W MFA Nos.201342/2016; 201345/2016; 201346/2016; 201347 of 2016; 201349/2016; 201350/2016; 201351/2016; 201352/2016 931/2014 passed by the IV-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, is set aside;
(iii) MVC Nos.922/2014 to 925/2014 & 927/2014 to 931/2014 are remitted back to Tribunal to dispose of cases on merits in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;
(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the concerned Tribunal without expecting any notice from the said Tribunal on 25.05.2023.
(v) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Tribunal for reference.
Sd/-
JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 16