Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 16 (CAL)

Aparna Bera v. Sanjit Patra

2017-01-05

MIR DARA SHEKO, RAKESH TIWARI

body2017
Rakesh Tiwari, J: This appeal is preferred challenging the correctness of the judgment and order dated 4th September, 2015 passed by 4th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.A.C. Case no. 413 of 2012, on the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal. 2. The judgment is assailed on the ground that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim application filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as the Act) holding that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application. 3. The brief facts of the case on the point of territorial jurisdiction are that the contesting respondent Divisional officer has an office at Paschim Medinipur and the claimant also resides at Paschim Medinipur whereas the accident occurred in Purba Medinipur. The claim application was preferred by the claimant at Paschim Medinipur. As such, according to the claimant/appellant, the award suffers from an error of jurisdiction apparent on record and in law, for, the Tribunal has not considered the provisions of section 166 sub-section (2) of the Act, which reads : “Section 166(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 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. 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.” 4. It is urged that section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for suits for compensation for wrong to persons or movables and section 20 whereof provides other suits to be instituted where defendant resides or cause of action arises. It is stated that thus, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure also provide that the suit can lie against a person who cause some wrong at the place where the appellant resides or works for gain. 5. It is stated that thus, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure also provide that the suit can lie against a person who cause some wrong at the place where the appellant resides or works for gain. 5. In our considered opinion, the Motor Vehicles Act, being a special Act, in so far as compensation under the said Act is to be paid, provisions of section 166 of the Act would prevail over the Code of Civil Procedure for determination of jurisdiction of Courts. There is no repugnancy between the provisions of section 166 of the Act and the provisions of sections 19 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Therefore, the Tribunal has apparently committed an error on face of record and in law in dismissing the claim application on the ground of territorial jurisdiction for the reason that the claim application could also have been filed and would also lie at Paschim Medinipur because not only the claimant, at the time of filing of the claim application, was working and residing at Paschim Medinipur, the regional office of the respondent no. 2 insurance company was also at Paschim Medinipur. Hence, there is no mistake in filing the claim application at Paschim Medinipur by the claimant. The claimant resides at Purba Medinipur where the accident took place whereas as noticed from record the claimant as well as the respondent had their offices at Paschim Medinipur. This error appears to have inadvertently crept in the judgment impugned for the reason that though in the claim application, the claimant had given his address as Purba Medinipur, but since he was working at Paschim Medinipur where respondent also had office, the claim was wrongly dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction. 7. For all the reasons, the appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding the claim case on merits. As the claim is an old one, having been filed in the year 2012 and pertains to payment of compensation to the minor children and wife of the victim, we direct the Tribunal to decide the claim case within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 8. There will be no order as to costs. 9. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished on priority basis.