Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 102 (MAD)

Saradha and Others v. Marappan and Others

2008-01-08

R.SUDHAKAR

body2008
Judgment : The civil revision petition has been filed by the aggrieved claimants against the order dated 15.2.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Kovilpatti, dismissing the claim petition stating that the claim petition has been filed before the Tribunal which does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim petition as none of the three conditions envisaged under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act are attracted to the facts of the case. 2. Admitted fact is that the accident in this case occurred in Sattur Town in Virudhunagar District. The deceased and the claimants are residents of Sivakasi at that time. The second respondent insurance company is at Coimbatore. The claim petition, however, has been, filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Kovilpatti. The second respondent insurance company objected to the claim petition stating that the accident occurred at Sattur and the claimants are residents of Sivakasi and therefore, no cause of action arose to file the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Kovilpatti. The Tribunal, therefore, rejected the claim petition on the ground that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. 3. The accident in this case happened on 25.10.2003. The claim petition was filed on 31.12.2003 stating that the address of the claimants is at 37/5, Ambedkar Street,Bharathi Nagar,Kovilpatti. The claim petition was taken on file on 28.6.2004 and counter was filed by the second respondent insurance company in December, 2004. In view of the objection raised by the second respondent insurance company that the claim petition should have been filed either at Sivakasi, viz., the place of residence of the claimants or at Coimbatore, the place where the second respondent insurance company is situated and not at Kovilpatti, the Tribunal took up the said issue for enquiry as it relates to plea on jurisdiction. The Tribunal observed in its order that the claimants had filed Exhibits P-1 to P-14 and in all the documents, the address of the claimants is shown as Sivakasi except in Exhibit P-7, the family card which shows the address of the claimants at Kovilpatti as above. The Tribunal held that Exhibit P-7 has been issued in the year 2005 ( i. e.) after the claim petition was filed. Therefore, it need not be given much importance. The Tribunal held that Exhibit P-7 has been issued in the year 2005 ( i. e.) after the claim petition was filed. Therefore, it need not be given much importance. Since all other documents, other than Exhibit P-7, show that the claimants are residing at Sivakasi and since the place of accident is Sattur and the second respondent insurance company is situated at Coimbatore, in terms of Section 166(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claim petition should have been filed in any one of the three places stated above and certainly not at Kovilpatti. In paragraph 7 of the order, the Tribunal further stated that the second respondent insurance company filed Exhibit R-1 which is the family card of the claimants for the period 1998-2003. Exhibit R-1 shows that the claimants are residing at Sivakasi. Even at the time of filing of the claim petition, the family card shows that they are the residents of Sivakasi. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the claimants are residents of Sivakasi and that the claim petition filed at Kovilpatti was erroneous and the said Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim petition and rejected the same. 4. Aggrieved thereby, this revision petition is filed by the claimants. The counsel for the revision petitioners stated that after the death of the bread winner, the claimants shifted to 37/5, Ambedkar Street,Bharathi Nagar,Kovilpatti as above. The process of changing the family card took sometime and finally in the year 2005, the family card was changed from Sivakasi to Kovilpatti. The address shown in the claim petition is the place of residence of the claimants and the said statement has to be accepted. 5. It is not in dispute that at the time of accident, the claimants and the deceased were residing at Sivakasi. Since the claimants have shifted their residence after the death of the bread winner, the claim petition was filed in Kovilpatti. At the time of adjudication of this case, they have produced the family card, viz., Exhibit P-7 to show that they are residents of Kovilpatti. This document is not in dispute. The Tribunal instead of appreciating the bona fides of the claimants about the place of the residence supported by Exhibit P-7, merely rejected the said document stating that no importance can be given to the same. This document is not in dispute. The Tribunal instead of appreciating the bona fides of the claimants about the place of the residence supported by Exhibit P-7, merely rejected the said document stating that no importance can be given to the same. Family card/ration card as it is commonly called is in fact the most important document to show the place of residence. The delay in processing the change of address from Sivakasi to Kovilpatti cannot be cited as the reason to reject the claim petition. Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent piece of legislation. The Tribunal should not have dismissed the claim petition on such a hyper-technical plea. The claimants‘ counsel also submitted that at the time of hearing of the case, the claimants are very much residing at Kovilpatti and such fact is. not disputed by the second respondent insurance company. What is disputed is that at the time of filing the claim petition, the family card address is shown as Sivakasi. The Tribunal should have accepted the plea of the claimants, since at the time of adjudication, they have shown substantial material, viz., Exhibit P-7, the family card to show that they are residents of Kovilpatti only. He, therefore, pleaded that the order of the Tribunal should be set aside and the matter should be sent back, to the very same Tribunal for adjudication of the claim on merits. 6. Counsel for the second respondent insurance company on the other hand relied upon the decision of this Court in Muthuraj alias Satyamurthy v. V. M. Kandasamy 2007 (1) CTC 311 , which has also been relied upon by the Tribunal, and submitted that on the date of filing the claim petition according to the document Exhibit R-l, the claimants are residents of Sivakasi. Therefore, the claims Tribunal rightly rejected the claim petition. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the claim petition on an hyper-technical plea stating that the claimants are residents of Sivakasi and not Kovilpatti based on Exhibit R-1 and rejecting Exhibit P-7. It is not in dispute that Exhibit P-7 is the family card of the claimants issued in the year 2005. On the date of adjudication, the claimants have proved that they are residents of Kovilpatti. It is not in dispute that Exhibit P-7 is the family card of the claimants issued in the year 2005. On the date of adjudication, the claimants have proved that they are residents of Kovilpatti. At the time of filing the claim petition, they have given the address as 37/5, Ambedkar Street,Bharathi Nagar,Kovilpatti, which is supported by Exhibit P-7. The reason for the issuance of the family card in the year 2005, as argued by the counsel for the revision petitioner, is a tenable plea. One cannot be expected to change the family card for the new address at the first instance before changing the place of residence. It is always after the change of residence that the person concerned will apply for modification or change of the address in the family card. In this case also after changing the place of residence from Sivakasi to Kovilpatti, the family card has been subsequently changed in the year 2005. In any event, at the time of adjudication before the Tribunal, the claimants have established by producing Exhibit P-7, the family card that they are residents of Kovilpatti. It is not the case of the second respondent insurance company or the finding of the Tribunal that the address mentioned in the family card Exhibit P-7 is not correct. 8. The provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows: “166. Application for Compensation: (1)An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made- a)by the person who-has sustained the injury; or b)by the owner of the property; or c)where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be; or d)by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, the case may be; Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. 2)Every application under sub-section (1) 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 defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed; Provided that where no claim for compensation under Section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.” 9. The decision of this Court Muthuraj alias Satyamurthy v. V. M. Kandasamy (supra) cannot be applied to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that in the reported case in paragraph 13, the Court came to conclusion that the petitioner did not let in evidence that the three requirements of Section 166(2) of Motor Vehicles Act are applicable to the facts of that case. In the present case, Exhibit P-7, family card satisfies the requirement with regard to the place of residence of the claimants as pleaded and proved. Therefore, the said decision will not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. In this case, the accident took place in Sattur Town, Virudhunagar District. The claimants have established their case by Exhibit P-7 that they are the residents of Kovilpatti and the claim petition has been filed before the Jurisdiction Tribunal at Kovilpatti. The claimants can either file at Sattur, the place of accident or at Kovilpatti where they reside or before the Tribunal at Coimbatore, where the second respondent insurance company is situated. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the document Exhibit P-7 which establishes that the claimants are residing at Kovilpatti only. Reliance placed on the Exhibits which are relatable to the address in which the claimants previously resided cannot be a good ground to reject the claim petition. The claimants have placed all records without reservation and filed the claim petition at Kovilpatti. The claim petition ought not to be thrown out on such a hyper-technical plea by misreading the documents. 11. The claim petition filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Kovilpatti is maintainable. The order of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition is therefore, erroneous and cannot be sustainable in law. The claim petition ought not to be thrown out on such a hyper-technical plea by misreading the documents. 11. The claim petition filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Kovilpatti is maintainable. The order of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition is therefore, erroneous and cannot be sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same, is set aside. The civil revision petition is allowed. The claim petition is restored to file. The matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal, Kovilpatti, for adjudication on merits. There will be no order as to cost.