Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 602 (MAD)

Valliyammal & Others v. Sasikumar & Others

2008-02-19

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN

body2008
Judgment :- The order of dismissal passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Erode (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), in MCOP.No.358 of 2006 on the ground of jurisdiction is under challenge in this revision. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners relying on a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4548 of 2007 (Morgina Begam Vs. Managing Director, Hanuma Plantation Ltd.,) dated 26.09.2007, (It is represented by the learned counsel that the said judgment was down loaded with the help of his computer), would contend that the expression ordinarily resides means where the person claiming compensation normally resides at the time of filing the claim petition and that in the said ratio, the claim petition was filed by the claimants, the parents of the victim before the Commissioner, Workmens Compensation, Zone-III, Tezpur, under Section 21(1)(b) of the Workmens Compensation Act. The said application was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the petition is not maintainable since it has been filed before the forum, which has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. As per section 21(1) of the Workmens Compensation Act, a petition claiming compensation can be filed at the forum where: (a) the accident took place which resulted in the injury (b) the workmen or in case of his death, the dependent claiming the compensation ordinarily resides (c)the employer has his registered office. It was contended on behalf of the respondent in that case that the claimant viz. Parents of the victim were neither residing on the date of filing of the petition at the place of accident or where the workman was ordinarily resides or the place were the employer had his registered office. It was in evidence that after the accident the claimants viz., the parents of the victim had shifted their residence and filed the petition before the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area, in which, the claimants were residing. Rejecting the contention of the respondent that the claimants have no jurisdiction to file the petition before the tribunal within the jurisdiction they reside, the Honourable Apex Court held that the expression actually resides as defined under Section 21(1)(b) of the Workmens Compensation Act means where the person claiming compensation normally resides at the time of filing the claim petition. 3. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner relying on the above said ratio decidendi would contend that section 21(1) of the Workmens Compensation Act is pari-materia for section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which also authorizes a person who resides within the local limits of the Tribunal to file the claim petition as per Section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act runs as follows:- "Section 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) ................... (b) ................... (c) ................... (d) ................... Provided ...................... (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. (3) ................ (4) ................ " So from the above provision of law it is clear that the claimant who resides or carries on business or within the local limits of the whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, can file the claim petition. According to the claimants after the accident they have shifted from Eachampatti Village, Ammamplayam Post, Thuraiyur Taluk, Perambalur District, and that on the date of filing of the petition they were residing at Palanigoundenpalyam, Pasur post, Erode District. No doubt if the petitioners have after the accident had shifted their residence from Eachampatti Village, Ammamplayam Post, Thuraiyur Taluk, Perambalur District, to Palanigoundenpalyam, Pasur post, Erode District, then under section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the application filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Erode, cannot be said to be filed before a wrong forum. But they must prove that they have shifted their residence from Eachampatti Village, Ammamplayam Post, Thuraiyur Taluk, Perambalur District, to Palanigoundenpalyam, Pasur post, Erode District. 4. But they must prove that they have shifted their residence from Eachampatti Village, Ammamplayam Post, Thuraiyur Taluk, Perambalur District, to Palanigoundenpalyam, Pasur post, Erode District. 4. A reading of the order of the Tribunal in MCOP.No.358 of 2006 will go to show that there was no material placed before the Tribunal by the claimants to show that they have shifted their residence from Eachampatti Village, Ammamplayam Post, Thuraiyur Taluk, Perambalur District, to Palanigoundenpalyam, Pasur post, Erode District. So the jurisdiction to file the claim petition as per Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act for the claim petitioners is to file the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which accident occurred or before the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. Since, absolutely there is no material placed before the Tribunal to show that the claimants are residing at Palanigoundenpalyam, Pasur post, Erode District, by way of producing any ration card or voter identity card, as rightly held by the Tribunal (I Additional District Judge, Erode), the claim petition is not maintainable before the I Additional District Judge, Erode. But the learned I Additional District Judge, Erode/ Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, instead of returning the claim petition to the claimants for representing the same before the appropriate forum has dismissed the application with a direction to file another petition. I am of the view that only that portion of the order alone is to be modified. 5. In fine, the order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Erode, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) in MCOP.No.358 of 2006 is modified to the effect as the claim petition is directed to be returned instead of dismissing the same to the claimants for representing the same before the appropriate forum within one month from the date of receipt of the claim petition from the Tribunal. With the above modification, the revision is disposed of. No costs.