Karnataka High Court
The Claims Officer Shririam General ... vs Depally Amrutha W/O D.Shanthaiah @ ... on 11 January, 2018
Author: L Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.200164/2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
The Claims Officer,
Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
# 10003 E-8, RIICO Industrial Area,
Sitapur, Jaipur. (Raj.) now represented
By its authorized signatory,
Pin code: 302022.
... Appellant
(By Sri.Bhadrashetty Sangeeta, Advocate)
AND:
1. Depally Amrutha W/o D.Shanthaiah
@ Sathyaiah, Age: 35 years,
Occ: Housewife,
2. Depally Mallesh S/o D. Shanthaiah,
Age: 18 years, Occ: --
3. Depally Krishnaveni D/o D.Shanthaiah
@ Sathyaiah, Age: 16 years, Occ: Student,
Minor,
2
4. Depally Lachamma W/o D.Narsaiah,
Age: 61 years, Occ: Nil,
Respondent No.3 herein is minor
Represented by respondent No.1
herein natural mother.,
All R1-4 herein are R/o Udithyala village,
Dist: Udithyala village,
Balanager Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.,
Now R/o Rampur, Tq: & Dt: Raichur-584101.
5. Kakarikayala Bixapathi S/o K.Jangaiah,
Age: Major, Occ: Owner of Lorry
Bearing Reg.No.AP-28/TB-4957,
R/o H.No.1-41, Kacharam village,
Shamshabad Mandal, Rangareddy,
Dist., A.P.
... Respondents
(R1, R2, R4 & R5 served - but unrepresented;
R3 is minor represented by R1)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
173(1) of M.V.Act, praying to setting aside the impugned
judgment and award, passed in MVC No.315/2012, dated
09.10.2013, by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
& II Addl. District Judge, at Raichur, in the interest of justice
and equity.
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court
delivered the following:
3
JUDGMENT
Appeal by the insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 09.10.2013 in MVC No.315/2012 passed by the MACT & II ADJ, At Raichur.
2. The claimants are the wife and children and mother of the deceased, who state that on 29.09.2011 at 7.00 pm, when Depally Sathyaiah @ Shanthiah was coming from Shadnagar after selling paddy, while on the way to village Udithyala by walk on extreme left side of the road, it is alleged that a lorry bearing No.AP-28/TB-4957 came from Shadnagar side driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Depally Sathyaiah @ Shanthiah from behind due to which he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
3. On service of notice, the respondent No.1- owner of the lorry remained absent and was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement. It has been contended by the insurance 4 company that respondent No.1 has falsely implicated his own brother as the driver in the criminal case and there is no such accident. The respondent-insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues;
1. Whether petitioners prove that the accident dated 28.09.2011 was due to rash and negligence on the part of driver of lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-28/TB-4957 resulting in the death of Depally Sathyaiah @ Shanthiah?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for award of compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
Both issues are answered in the affirmative.
5. The ground taken by the appellant / insurance company is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter since the claimants do not suffice sub- section (2) of Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act. To 5 substantiate the same, the insurance company relied on the certified copy of the FIR with complaint as per Ex.P1 and its translation with complaint, Ex.P2 is the PME report, Ex.P4 is the Charge sheet, Ex.P5 is the spot panchanama and its translation and submitted that all these documents were placed on record. Place of accident is in Andhra Pradesh. The claimants furnished their address as residents of Udithyala village, Balanagar Mandal, Mehaboobnagar District of Andhra Pradesh. Further, they have not furnished any papers that they are residents of Rampur village in Raichur taluka. In addition to the particulars furnished by the claimants, records discloses that owner of the vehicle is resident of Andhra Pradesh. Under these circumstances, invoking sub-section (2) of section 166 of M.V.Act is permissible for the claimants. The place of accident, residence of the claimants, place of respondent- owner of the vehicle and the branch office of the insurance company is Andhra Pradesh. The claimants state themselves that they are carrying business in Andhra Pradesh. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal at 6 Raichur would not get jurisdiction. On this ground, appeal is to be allowed and order of the Tribunal is to be set aside.
6. The respondents are unrepresented.
7. The F.I.R., which has been lodged by the wife of the deceased before the Shadnagar police station of Mahabubnagar District of Andhra Pradesh in Crime No.458/2011 dated 28.09.2011 for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C., discloses that immediately after the accident F.I.R. was submitted to the learned J.M.F.C. at Shadnagar, wherein it was stated as "Today i.e., on 28.09.2011 at 2100 hours I received a complaint from Smt. Depally Amrutha W/o Depally Sathyaiah Age : 33 years, Caste: Golla, Occ: Agril R/o. Udittyal Village, Balanagar (M), in Telugu which states as follows:.........". The contents of complaint reflects that the cause of action arose in Andhra Pradesh since the alleged accident is occurred in Andhra Pradesh and particularly the respondent who committed the offence is also a resident of Andhra Pradesh. When these are the materials available on record, a doubt arises why the claim 7 petitions is filed before the MACT at Raichur. Further, Ex.P3-M.V.A. Report discloses address of the driver of offending vehicle as under:
"K. Mallesh S/o. J. Jagadish, Resident of No.1-41, Navajipur, Kacharak, Shamshadbad, Rangaraj District Andrha Pradesh".
8. Ex.P3 M.V.I. Report also discloses that the place of accident, residence of claimants and residence of owner of offending vehicle and address of authorized insurer as Andhra Pradesh. When that is the truth, the question that would arise is, how the claim petition came to be filed before the MACT at Raichur and whether only for the purpose of filing claim petition the claimants have stated that now they are residing in Rampur of Raichur Taluk and District. Under the provision of Sub Section (2) Section 166 of M.V. Act a claim petition can be filed in three places, which is convenient for the claimants. It can be filed by the claimants, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the 8 Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction 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. None of these is followed while filing the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act in the instant case. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decisions of Suprme Court in the case of MALATI SARDAR Versus NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS - (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 43 and also the case of MANTOO SARKAR Versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS
- (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 244.
9. In these two judgments it has been held that while deciding the jurisdiction for the purpose of filing a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, hyper technicality has to be entertained. It is true that the Act is for the benefit of the claimants and as far as possible where interpretation is required it should be in favour of the 9 claimants only. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SYED MEHABOOB Versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 625, has held that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficent legislation intended to place the claimant in the same position that he was before the accident and to compensate him for his loss. Thus it should be interpreted liberally so as to help the claimants. Keeping these judgments in mind, referred above, for the purpose of deciding jurisdiction, hyper technicality is supposed to be entertained. However, the term 'hyper technicality' is to be understood with regard to the jurisdiction as stated under Section 166 of M.V. Act. When the accident is taken place in different state, only in order to invoke the jurisdiction and other interpretation regarding State or the District, it burdens on the party who files the claim petition. He has to produce and satisfy the Court with regard to residence by producing Adhar Card, Driving Licence, Ration Card or any Registered RPAD, then only the Court can invoke the jurisdiction. This possibility of invoking jurisdiction of another State is only for filing the 10 claim petition, some time may hide the facts and suppress the truth and misguide the Court for the purpose of taking illegal benefit. In order to examine the Investigating Officer and summoning to him, it has to be done through communication between the State to State and it is unnecessarily heavy burden on the claims Tribunals, which are constituted in other States. Further, the documents will be in the regional language. In order to avoid all these difficulties, Sub Section (2) of Section 166 of M.V. Act is adhered for the purpose of entertaining the claim petition. In the instant case though the Insurance Company has relied on the police documents and provisions of the M.V. Act, the Tribunal, without giving any thought on it, has proceeded pass the impugned judgment and award, which is not just. The Tribunal has not given reasons while rejecting the contentions of the appellant-Insurance Company in claim petition. Hence, the judgement and award of the Tribunal suffers for want of jurisdiction. 11
10. Accordingly with the above observations, appeal is allowed. The judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 09.10.2013 in MVC No.315/2012 is hereby set aside.
Liberty is reserved to the claimants to approach appropriate claims Tribunal for the purpose of their claim.
Amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant- Insurance Company.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMP/ SBS*