Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2082 (MAD)

P. Pandiammal v. Anand

2008-06-27

K.K.SASIDHARAN

body2008
Judgment :- The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 19.01.2007 in MACOP.No.186 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Virudhunagar. 2. This case is a glaring example as to how poor petitioners in a motor accident claim could be driven from pillar to post by a Tribunal. 3. The claim petition in MACOP.No.186 of 2006 has been preferred by the petitioners against the respondents before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Virudhunagar. In the said application in MACOP.No.186 of 2006, it was the contention of the revision petitioners that they are the mother, father and sister of the deceased Rajagopal, who died in a motor accident on 12.11.2005 on Kalkuruchi to Aruppukkottai main road near Samathuvapuram involving the vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent. 4. The claim petition was preferred before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Virudhunagar, as according to the petitioners, they were residing within the jurisdiction of the said Tribunal. 5. The claim petition was contested by the second respondent on various grounds. The matter was subsequently taken up for trial and after recording the evidence, the learned trial Judge framed three points for determination, the first being one as to whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 6. While considering the point regarding jurisdiction of the Court, the Tribunal found that the respondents were not residing within the limits of the said Tribunal and the first respondent is residing in Madurai and he has insured his vehicle with the Insurance Company located at Madurai. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was of the opinion that no cause of action has arisen to file the claim petition before the Tribunal at Virudhunagar and accordingly, the claim petition was returned for representation before the proper Court. It is the said order dated 19.01.2007, which is impugned in the present revision. 7. I have heard Mr. M. Mohan Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr. N. Murugesan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 8. It is the said order dated 19.01.2007, which is impugned in the present revision. 7. I have heard Mr. M. Mohan Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Mr. N. Murugesan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 8. On a careful consideration of the order impugned in the present revision as well as the materials available on record, I am of the view that the learned trial Judge adopted a hyper-technical approach in the matter and rejected the petition for want of jurisdiction and that too, after taking evidence and during the time of pronouncing judgment. In case the Tribunal was of the opinion that the application was not maintainable before the said Tribunal, the Tribunal should have decided the said issue at the earliest point of time. There was no justification for keeping the matter for such a long time. On account of the course adopted by the learned Tribunal, considerable difficulties have been caused to the poor claimants. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the place of accident as well as the Mallankinar Police Station within whose jurisdiction, the accident occurred, comes under the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal, Virudhunagar and as such, the learned trial Judge was clearly in error in rejecting the application. 10. Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act was substituted by Act 54/1994, whereby the Act now permits the claim petition to be filed at the option of the claimant, either before 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 carried 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. The intention of the Parliament is very clear by substituting the said provision. When it was the clear case of the petitioners that they are residing within the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal, Virudhunagar and the accident also happened within the jurisdiction of the said Tribunal and as there were no other contra evidence produced by the respondents to show that the petitioners were indulged in forum shopping, the learned trial Judge should have disposed the claim petition on merits without returning the same after the fag end of the trial. It is found from the counter filed by the second respondent that they have raised the issue pertaining to jurisdiction, even in the said counter. However, other than raising such contention, no evidence was produced by the second respondent to prove the contention with regard to lack of jurisdiction to take up the matter by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Virudhunagar. When there was a contention with regard to jurisdiction, the learned trial Judge should have decided the said issue before proceeding to hear the matter on merits. 11. There was no justification on the part of the learned Tribunal in sitting over the issue for a period of two years, and to reject the claim petition for presentation before the proper Court, after trial. 12. In R.N. Jadi & Brothers vs. Subhashchandra reported in 2007(9) Scale 202, the Apex Court considered the procedural law viz-a-viz substantive law and observed as under: "9. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice. 10. The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a judge’s conscience and points an angry interrogation at the law reformer. 11. The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residuary power in judges to act ex debito justitiae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence, processual, as much as substantive. (See Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar (1975)(1) SCC 774]. 12. No person has a vested right in any course of procedure. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence, processual, as much as substantive. (See Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar (1975)(1) SCC 774]. 12. No person has a vested right in any course of procedure. He has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner for the time being by or for the court in which the case is pending, and if, by an Act of Parliament the mode of procedure is altered, he has no other right than to proceed according to the altered mode. (See Blyth v. Blyth.) A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. [See Shreenath and Anr. v. Rajesh and Ors. ( AIR 1998 SC 1827 )] 13. Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice." 13. Therefore, on an overall consideration of the entire matter, I am of the view that the learned trial Judge was in error in rejecting the claim petition to be presented before the proper Court for determination. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.01.2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Tribunal for disposal on merits and as per law. Since the matter is of the year 2006, and as the evidence has already been completed, the learned trial Judge is directed to decide the issue Nos.2 and 3 and dispose of the claim petition, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and report compliance to this Court. 14. This Civil Revision Petition is allowed, subject to the above observation. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.