Karnataka High Court
Sri Markondappa Alias Markondaiah vs The Managing Director on 12 January, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
M.F.A.No.3425/2010 (MV)
BETWEEN:
SRI MARKONDAPPA
ALIAS MARKONDAIAH
S/O V. GOVINDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.691, 29TH MAIN
B.T.M. LAYOUT
BANGALORE.
... APPELLANT
(BY SMT. SUGUNA R REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
A.P.R.T.C, MASHEERABAD
HYDERABAD
ANDRA PRADESH.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI D.VIJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF
MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
8.2.2010 PASSED IN MVC NO.7695/2007 ON THE FILE OF
19TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT,
BANGALORE, RETURNING THE PETITION AS NOT
MAINTAINABLE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
JUDGMENT
Heard Smt. Suguna R. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for appellant. Though respondent is served and represented, none appears.
2. Appellant who was claimant before the Tribunal had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation in MVC No.7695/2007. It was contended in the claim petition that in a road traffic accident that occurred on 03.03.2006 while petitioner was proceeding on his TVS Moped bus belonging to respondent - Corporation had dashed against his vehicle and as such he had sustained grievous injuries. Hence, seeking compensation claim petition came to be filed.
3. On service of notice respondent -
Corporation appeared and filed detailed statement of objections contending interalia that claimant is not a permanent resident of Bangalore and accident had taken place at Palamaneer, Andhra Pradesh and the 3 owner of bus being Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation at Hyderabad, no part of cause of action arose in the in the State of Karnataka and MACT, Bangalore has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.
4. Claimant tendered his evidence by examining himself as P.W.1 and one witness was examined as P.W.2 and in all produced 9 documents and got them marked as Exs.P-1 to P-9. Respondent also tendered evidence by examining one witness as R.W.1. Tribunal without going into the merits of the claim petition, disposed of the claim petition on the issue of maintainability and held that claim petition is not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction and accordingly ordered for return of the claim petition for being presented before the jurisdictional Tribunal by judgment and award dated 08.02.2010, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4
5. It is the contention of Smt. Suguna R. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for claimant that even in circumstances where award has been passed by the Claim's Tribunal, which was lacking territorial jurisdiction, such award would not become illegal and she relies upon following judgments:
(i) AIR 2009 SC 1022: MANTOO SARKAR
vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
AND ANR.
(ii) AIR 2016 SC 247: MALATI SARDAR vs.
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
AND ORS.
6. As already noticed hereinabove respondent is served and represented but none appears. Tribunal as noticed hereinabove has ordered for return of claim petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction. Records of Tribunal would clearly disclose that in the claim petition a contention was taken by the claimant that he is a resident of Bangalore. In the cross-examination dated 11.03.2009 claimant admitted that he is residing at 5 Nallarupalli behind Sathya Saibaba Hospital in Andhra Pradesh. He also admits that when accident took place he was residing at Bommanapalli in Andhra Pradesh. Except a stray statement in the affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief that he is a resident of Bangalore, there is no other plea or any other supporting document to establish that claimant was residing at Bangalore or in Karnataka at any point of time. In such circumstances, Division Bench of this Court in the case of SUBHADRA AND OTHERS vs PANKAJ AND ANR reported in ILR 2013 Kar. 102 has held that Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, would make it clearly that claimant is having four options to file a claim petition before:
(i) Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident has occurred;
(ii) Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction claimant resides;
(iii) Carries on business; or 6
(iv) Within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides.
7. It has been further held that said statutory provision does not confer jurisdiction within the local limits where the defendant carries on the business and held that intent of the legislature is clear and it did not intend to confer jurisdiction on Claims Tribunal within whose local limits defendant "carries on business" by taking note of the judgment of Apex Court in MANTOO SARKAR's1. As such no fault can be found in the judgment and award passed by Tribunal in ordering for return of claim petition for being presented before the jurisdictional Tribunal.
8. Insofar as, judgment of Apex Court in the case of MALATI SARDAR vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ORS. referred to by the learned counsel for appellant when perused it would clearly indicate that Tribunal in the said case had not only 1 AIR 2009 SC 1022 7 examined the issue of territorial jurisdiction but had also gone one step forward namely it had adjudicated the claim on merits and as such had awarded compensation. In this background, Hon'ble Apex Court held that award of Claims Tribunal cannot be set aside even if there was a merit in the contention of lack of territorial jurisdiction and as such award was not interfered with. However, in the instant case it is noticed that Tribunal has not examined the case on merits and as such, no useful purpose would be served by again remitting the matter back to Tribunal for adjudication of claim petition on merits for determination or computation of compensation payable to the claimant when it has been held MACT, Bangalore has no jurisdiction. However, ends of justice would be met if the interest of claimant is protected by permitting the claimant to present the claim petition before jurisdictional Tribunal within a fixed time. Hence, for the reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following: 8
ORDER
(i) Appeal is hereby dismissed by affirming the judgment and award dated 08.02.2010 passed by MACT, Bangalore in MVC No.7695/2007.
(ii) Appellant would be at liberty to present the claim petition with all supporting documents before the jurisdictional Tribunal within an outer limit of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of papers from the registry of this Tribunal.
(iii) Registry of Tribunal shall handover the claim petition along with original documents on same being substituted by photocopies to the claimant within four weeks from today and on such presentation of claim before jurisdictional Tribunal claimant would be entitled to urge for payment of 9 interest for this interregnum period i.e., from the date of filing of claim petition before MACT, Bangalore till re-
presentation of claim petition before the jurisdictional Tribunal and thereafter, since claimant was prosecuting a right cause before the wrong forum.
SD/-
JUDGE DR