SBCMA No.459/2008
Laxman Lal Vs. Kanti lal & Ors.
-{1}-
SBCMA No.459/2008
Laxman Lal Vs. Kanti lal & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : - 15.9.2008
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
Mr.Pankaj Sharma, for the appellant.
Mr.Jagdish Vyas, for the respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The appellant claimant is aggrieved against the order
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara dated
15.2.2008 by which the tribunal in claim case No.343/2005
returned the claim petition to the claimant for presenting in
the proper tribunal on account of want of territorial
jurisdiction.
According to learned counsel for the appellant, the
claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal on 9.9.2004 with clear averment that appellant is
residing at Aazad Nagar, Bhilwara in the State of Rajasthan
within the jurisdiction of the Bhilwara Court. The reply was
filed by the respondent Insurance Company and in reply
filed on 20.12.2005 no objection about lack of territorial
jurisdiction was raised nor it was contended that appellant
SBCMA No.459/2008
Laxman Lal Vs. Kanti lal & Ors.
-{2}-
is not residing at the address given by the appellant in
Bhilwara. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal recorded
evidence of the parties and ultimately on 22.8.2007, the
respondent Insurance Company who was granted
permission under Section 170 of the Motor Accident Act by
order dated 10.10.2006 closed its evidence and the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal fixed the case for final hearing.
The arguments were heard on 12.2.2008 by the tribunal,
and, thereafter, while deciding the claim petition of the
claimant, the considered the application filed by the
respondent Insurance Company dated 14.2.2007 in which
objection was raised by the respondent that as per the
respondent’s survey they found that the appellant is not
residing at Bhilwara, therefore, the tribunal at Bhilwara has
no jurisdiction.
According to learned counsel for the appellant, the
tribunal committed serious error of fact in holding that
appellant is not residing at Bhilwara and further committed
error of law by allowing the objection on the ground of
territorial jurisdiction after such a late state and that to it
SBCMA No.459/2008
Laxman Lal Vs. Kanti lal & Ors.
-{3}-
was not persuaded and pressed by the respondent
Insurance Company, which is clear from the facts on record.
Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance
Comopany vehemently submitted that in view of sub-
section (2) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
only that tribunal has jurisdiction within local limits the
accident occurred or the claimant resides or carrying on
business. It is submitted that the appellant was not
residing in Bhilwara and, therefore, the tribunal rightly
passed the order returning the claim.
I considered the submissions of learned counsel for
the parties and perused the facts of the case. The facts
referred above are not in dispute so far as filing of the claim
by the claimant on 29th Sept., 2004, filing of reply by the
respondent Insurance Company on 20.12.2005 and further
there was no objection of the respondent about territorial
jurisdiction of the tribunal in the reply. The evidence was
recorded by the tribunal and the objection for territorial
jurisdiction was raised by moving application on 14.2.2007.
Thereafter, the proceedings continued and no order was
SBCMA No.459/2008
Laxman Lal Vs. Kanti lal & Ors.
-{4}-
sought by the respondent- Insurance Company on this
application. The tribunal by order dated 28th May, 2007 has
ordered that the issue raised by the respondent about the
territorial jurisdiction shall be decided after evidence of the
parties. The respondent- Insurance Company did not
choose to produce any evidence with respect to any of their
objection.
In view of the above reasons, the objection of
territorial jurisdiction was raised after inordinate delay in
spite of having knowledge from beginning that
accident occurred on the road leading to the Puna, outside
State of Rajasthan and the claimant claimed that he is
residing in Bhilwara. The respondent if collected some
evidence with respect to the residence of the claimant then
the respondent did not choose to produce any evidence
even after passing of the order by the tribunal dated 28th
May, 2007 wherein the tribunal held that issue will be
decided after evidence of the parties. There is no reason for
the court below to reject the evidence of the claimant when
there was no rebuttal from the side of the respondent.
SBCMA No.459/2008
Laxman Lal Vs. Kanti lal & Ors.
-{5}-
In view of the above, the objection which was raised
after inordinate delay should have been rejected by the
tribunal and further on facts, the tribunal committed serious
error in returning the claim. It is not a case of inherent lack
of jurisdiction of the tribunal but it was an objection about
territorial jurisdiction which cannot be inherent lack of
jurisdiction of the tribunal.
Hence, the appeal of the appellant is allowed. The
order dated 15.2008 is set aside. The matter is remanded
to the tribunal and tribunal shall decide the claim petition
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of
the copy of this order alongwith record. Office is directed to
send the copy of this order alongwith record to the tribunal
forthwith.
Both the parties shall remain present before the
tribunal on 14.10.2008.
(PRAKASH TATIA), J.
c.p.goyal/-