Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 353 (CAL)

Subrata Chatterjee v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.

2017-04-03

ASHIS KUMAR CHAKRABORTY

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This revisional application is directed against the order dated September 26, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/XIth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in M.J.C. No. 8 of 2005. By the impugned order, the learned Court below returned the claim petition filed by the petitioner, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act of 1988") to his advocate for presentation of the same before the appropriate forum, on the ground that it lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim. 2. The petitioner filed the motor accident claim before the learned Court below on the ground that the opposite party no. 1-Insurance Company has its registered office at 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata- 700 071, within the jurisdiction of the learned Court below. The learned Court below, however, rejected the claim petition of the petitioner on the ground that the motor accident out of which the petitioner suffered the physical injury took place at B.T. Road, Dunlop within the jurisdiction at North 24-Parganas, the driver and the owner of the offending lorry reside in the district of Hooghly. The learned Court below further held that if the victims of motor accident cases are permitted to file claim cases in the Tribunals situated within the jurisdiction of the registered office of the Insurance Company, then such Tribunals will be flooded with claim cases and as such, return the claim petition to the petitioner. 3. Having considered the facts of the case, I find that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below rejecting the claim petition cannot be sustained. 4. Considering the provisions contained in Section 166(2) of the Act of 1988 in the case of Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2009) 2 S.C.C. 244 , as well as in the case of Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Co. 4. Considering the provisions contained in Section 166(2) of the Act of 1988 in the case of Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2009) 2 S.C.C. 244 , as well as in the case of Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others., reported in 2016(1) T.A.C. 337 (S.C.)., the Supreme Court held that the provision in Section 166 of the said Act is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving and the provision for the territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the objected of facilitating remedies for the victims of accident and there is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the Insurance Company, which is the main contesting party in such cases, has his business. Following the said decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Biswajit Roy v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2016(2) T.A.C. 256 (Cal), this Court also held that an application under Section 166(2) of the said Act can be maintained before the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the Insurance Company has its office. 5. For the reasons as aforesaid, the impugned order dated September 26, 2011 stands set aside. 6. It appears that the impugned order was passed by the learned Court below when the hearing of the claim petition was concluded and the matter was fixed for delivery of judgment. 7. The learned Court below is requested to expeditiously dispose of the claim petition of the petitioner being M.J.C. No. 8 of 2005, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, adduced by the respective parties which are already on record, preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. 8. With the above directions, the revisional application, being CO 1133 of 2013 stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 9. Certified website copies of the order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. Revision application allowed.