Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Victim (son of appellant) died in an motor vehicle accident – Appellant filed an application u/s. 166 of the MV before the tribunal – Issues framed – Both sides examined witnesses – Tribunal held that the mere fact that the insurance company got an office within the jurisdictional limits of the Tribunal could not confer jurisdiction on it – Based on negative finding on question of territorial jurisdiction, Tribunal decided all the other six issues against the claimant and in favour of the opposite parties – Claim petition was dismissed – High Court confirmed the view of the tribunal – Correctness: Held: The words ‘at the option of the claimant’ employed in s.166(2) assumes relevance – Indubitably, the statute indicates that option lies with the claimant – Merely because the claimant made the application for compensation not to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or not to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction he resides or carries on business, is no reason to dismiss the application provided it is filed before a Claims Tribunal where it is otherwise maintainable – The branch of the insurance company lied within the limits of the Tribunal where the subject claim petition was filed – Further, for the purpose of deciding the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the Tribunal permitted the parties to adduce evidence for it – In terms of Or. XIV, Rule 2 CPC, the issues regarding territorial jurisdiction ought to be tried as primary issues but when it is evident that the issue could not be decided solely based on the pleadings in the plaint (here claim petition) and when parties are permitted to adduce evidence upon finding that it is a mixed question of law and facts there was absolutely no justification for not pronouncing an award on all the issues framed besides the one pertaining to its territorial jurisdiction – In the case on hand a great illegality or error was committed by the Tribunal even after observing that it got no occasion to examine the other six issues but then deciding those six issues against the claimant and in favour of the opposite parties – The said other six issues were examined without going into the merits – The very purpose of the benevolent legislation providing for grant of compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act was defeated – The claim petition was kept for 4 years and it was dismissed only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction – The High Court has fallen in error in not picking up the illegalities resulting in failure of justice and to resolve them appropriately – Considering the circumstances, the matter remanded back to the Tribunal, to proceed further and to decide the claim petition on merits. [Paras 17, 26, 28, 32] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.21 – Objection as to lack of territorial jurisdiction would not make a judgment/decree nullity:
Held: A bare perusal of Section 21, CPC would reveal that objection as to the place of suing is not to be entertained by any Appellate or Revisional Court if it was not taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice – While looking into the object and reasons for the aforesaid provision it is very clear as to why lack of territorial jurisdiction by itself was not recognized under it as a reason to make a judgment/decree a nullity – It is to be noted that it is quite different and distinct from inherent lack of jurisdiction which would strike at the very authority of the Court to try a case and pass a judgment/decree and would make it a nullity – On a careful consideration of the provisions under Section 21, CPC, it would make it clear though taking of an objection as to the lack of territorial jurisdiction before the Court of first instance at the earliest opportunity is a condition required to raise that objection before an appellate or revisional Court satisfaction of such condition by itself would not make an award granting compensation a nullity inasmuch as in such cases there would not be inherent lack of jurisdiction in Court in regard to the subject matter – Therefore, in such cases, correction by a Court is open, only if it occasions in failure of justice – The provision thus, reflects the legislative intention that all possible care should be taken to ensure that the time, energy and labour spent by a Court did not go in vain unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. [Para 13]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.