IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH MFA NO.9763/2012(MV) BETWEEN:
SRI. MASILAMANI AGED 83 YEARS S/O KUPPUSAMY NO.81, KAVITHA NILAYAM SHIVAPURA, BAGALUR MAIN YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 063.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI.S.S.MAHENDRA, ADV.) AND 1. REKHA.G.
S/O GOWRI SHANKAR MAJOR IN AGE RESIDING AT NO.123/189A ERUKKANCHERY HIGH ROAD SHARMA NAGAR, CHENNAI.
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28,5TH FLOOR CENTUNARY BUILDING, M.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.
….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.C.BETSUR, ADV. FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED:04.08.2015) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 19.08.2011 PASSED IN MVC NO.1534/2010 ON THE FILE OF 14TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE, MACT, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE CITY, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant against the judgment and award dated 19.8.2011 passed in M.V.C.No.1534/2010, on the file of the MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-10) wherein the claim petition came to be dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
2. Brief facts of the case:
On 31.5.2009 at about 10.00 am, when the claimant was a pedestrian standing opposite to the home near Pillaiar Kovil Street, at that time the rider of the TVS Scooty Pep Plus bearing Reg.No.TN-05-Z- 8481 came from opposite direction and dashed against the claimant and caused the accident. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries to his left leg. Hence, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation. The Tribunal after hearing the parties has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the petition is not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition and has failed to note that the Motor Vehicles Act is a social welfare legislation and Section 166(2) of the MV Act contemplates that every application filed under Sub-section (1) of the Act shall be made at the option of the claimant, either to the claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the respondent resides. Hence, the impugned judgment and award dismissing the claim petition by the Tribunal is erroneous.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 does not dispute that the claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that there is no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
5. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, the points that arise for my consideration are:
(i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition?
(ii) What order?
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant and respondent No.2 have brought to my notice that the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction.
7. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malati Sardar –v- National Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2016 ACJ 542, the very finding of the Tribunal that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, is erroneous. On perusal of the records of the Tribunal, it discloses that the Tribunal has also not granted any compensation while dismissing the claim petition. Hence, the judgment and award of the Tribunal requires to be set aside and matter requires to be considered afresh by the Tribunal.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and award dated 19.8.2011 passed in M.V.C.No.1534/2010, on the file of the MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-10) is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter on merits.
(iii) Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 18.11.2019 without expecting any notice from the Tribunal.
Sd/- JUDGE DM