The Allahabad High Court has held that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot dismiss a claim petition at the close of a full trial merely on the ground that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, where none of the opposite parties has shown that it suffered any prejudice from the case being tried there.

Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 leaves the choice of forum to the claimant. The claim may go to the Tribunal for the area where the accident occurred, to the Tribunal where the claimant resides or carries on business, or to the Tribunal where the defendant resides.

Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,

“Rejection of the claim petition after the lapse of a considerable period of time, solely on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, particularly when the witnesses had already been examined, would not only defeat the very object and purpose of the beneficial provision contained in Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but would also frustrate the underlying object of the benevolent legislation providing for just and adequate compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.”

“Such an approach would, in effect, permit a mere technical objection as to territorial jurisdiction to override the substantive rights of the claimants and defeat the very remedial purpose for which the statutory provision has been enacted.”

Rajendra Singh was riding home to Sarsaul, in Kanpur Nagar, on 07.09.2012 when a car struck his motorcycle. He died during treatment. His widow, his two children and his mother filed a claim petition under Section 166 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Sitapur, seeking Rs. 30,41,000/- with interest at 12% per annum.

The Tribunal framed eight issues and took up its own territorial jurisdiction first. It found nothing on record to show the claimants had shifted their permanent residence from Kanpur to Sitapur, and that neither the owner nor the driver of the car lived or worked in Sitapur. On 02.07.2014 it dismissed the claim petition for want of jurisdiction without going into the remaining issues, leaving the claimants free to approach the competent Tribunal.

In appeal, the claimants argued that no respondent had pleaded or proved prejudice, and the Tribunal had framed the jurisdiction issue but never decided it as a preliminary issue, choosing instead to run a full trial and non-suit them at the end on a technicality. They also pointed out that the National Insurance Company had sworn its written statement at Sitapur, showing it was doing business there.

They also moved an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to bring on record a school leaving certificate dated 31.07.2014 for the third appellant, giving his address as Village Hempur, District Sitapur. The widow said she was a less-educated housewife whose earlier counsel had not advised her to file it. The United India Insurance Company opposed the appeal, contending that every document before the Tribunal showed a Kanpur address.

Taking note of Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, Malati Sardar versus National Insurance Company Limited and Balveer Batra versus New India Assurance Company Ltd., the Court held that want of territorial jurisdiction does not make an award a nullity. It held that the provision must be read so as to make the remedy easier for accident victims. It held that the insurer's written statement, sworn at Sitapur, was by itself enough to found jurisdiction there.

“This fact was itself sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction upon the Tribunal at Sitapur under the third limb of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, namely that the claim petition can be filed before the Tribunal “within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides.” The learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No. 8, failed to notice and consider this material circumstance, and committed grave error.”

It held,

“The learned Tribunal in the case in hand, despite the framing of Issue No. 8 pertaining to jurisdiction, chose not to decide the same as a preliminary issue. Instead, it allowed all parties to adduce their documentary as well as oral evidence and conducted a complete trial. Having permitted the parties to go through a full-fledged trial without even adverting on the issue of 'prejudice' at any stage, the Tribunal was not justified, in nullifying the entire proceedings at the final stage.”

The Court observed that no respondent had pleaded prejudice at any stage and nothing on record showed any. It held that there was therefore no failure of justice, while the dependants of the deceased had been non-suited after a full trial on a purely technical ground.

Allowing the application for additional evidence, the Court held that the certificate bore materially on the question of residence, and found the widow's explanation credible in the light of Rafiq and Another versus Munshilal and Another.

“Having engaged a counsel and entrusted him with the conduct of the proceedings, the appellants had done all that could reasonably be expected of them and cannot be made to suffer for the omission of their counsel in not producing the said document before the Tribunal.”

Accordingly, the Court set aside the order dated 02.07.2014 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal at Sitapur, directing it to entertain the claim petition and decide it on merits.

Case Title: Smt. Santosh Singh And Others v. Gajendra Singh And Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order