Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2317 (RAJ)

Mangi Lal v. Rajendra Singh

2011-11-02

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2011
Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants whose claim petition was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by order dated 29.4.2010 on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal in doing so relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in AIR 1992 SC 1514 , M/s. Patel Roadways Ltd., Bombay vs. M/s. Prasad Trading Company. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the deceased child was daughter of appellant nos.1, 2 and was aged 7-8 years. She died in an accident involving the bus of the RSRTC. The learned Tribunal having quantified the amount of Rs.2,25,000, illegally rejected the claim petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It was argued that aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court in M/s. Patel Roadways, supra cannot be applied to the facts of this case because that judgment was rendered on interpretation of Section 20 of CPC, whereas there is a specific provision in Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which governs the field. It is provided in the aforesaid Section that claim petition can be filed by the claimant 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 defendant resides. 3. In the present case, learned counsel for appellant has argued that the vehicle even though belonging to Sardar Shahar, but the headquarters of RSRTC is at Jaipur and that the RSRTC through Chairman, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur was impleaded as non-claimant. Besides that, learned counsel argued that the bus was financed at Jaipur. 4. Shri V.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in rejecting the claim petition by applying the ratio of Supreme Court in M/s. Patel Roadways, supra. It was argued that the Tribunal has erred in law in quantifying the compensation because ultimately it rejected the claim petition only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, therefore remedy available to the appellant was to file fresh claim petition before the Tribunal having jurisdiction. 5. On hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned award, I find that the judgment of Supreme Court in M/s. Patel Roadways Ltd., supra arose out of suit for damages filed against the Corporation. 5. On hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned award, I find that the judgment of Supreme Court in M/s. Patel Roadways Ltd., supra arose out of suit for damages filed against the Corporation. The Supreme Court in that case was called upon to interpret Section 20 of CPC especially Explanation thereto which provided that a Corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office at such place. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment revisited its earlier decisions on interpretation of aforesaid provisions and held that so long as the subordinate office of the Corporation is situated at a place other than headquarters, the suit would be maintainable at such place if the cause of action has arisen there. In the present case, possibly those provisions may not be applicable because a specific provision in a separate enactment, which is the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governs the field i.e. Section 166(2) according to which the claim petition could be filed before 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. RSRTC in the present case was impleaded as non-claimant through its Chairman Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur and that was sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act. 6. In that view of the matter, the view taken by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in holding the claim petition without jurisdiction, cannot be upheld. The finding on issue No.3 by the Tribunal is thus reversed. Since the Tribunal has already quantified the amount of compensation to be paid to the appellants, it is directed that the said amount shall be paid to the appellants together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. The appeal is accordingly allowed.