Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 782 (GAU)

Taillienkim Lushai v. State of Assam

2021-12-09

DEVASHIS BARUAH

body2021
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. M. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. P.S. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 1. This is an application under article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment dated 25.7.2016 passed in MAC Case No. 275/2013 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar. Holding, inter alia, that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar did not have the territorial jurisdiction within the meaning of section 166(2) of the MV Act, 1988, for short “the Act of 1988” to entertain the said claim petition. 2. The brief facts of the instant case is that the claimants who are the legal representatives of one Vanlalsiama Lushai claimed an amount of Rs. 21,00,000 as compensation on account of the accident which took place on 24.8.2001 at Longlai on PWD road at 9 a.m. under Umrangsho P.S. in the district of Dima Hasao by a motor vehicle bearing No. AS-3 01126 belonging to the respondent No. 4 herein. Though the accident happened in the year 2001, the claimants filed an application seeking compensation in the year 2013 before the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar on the ground that at that relevant point of time there was no Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Dima Hasao. It is the case of the petitioners that the said Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Silchar was nearest to the place of the accident as well as the residence of the claimants for which the said application was filed at the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Silchar. 3. The respondents herein filed their written statement in the said proceedings and thereupon five issues were framed which for the sake of convenience is quoted herein below:- Issues to be decided. “1. Whether the claim petition is maintainable on the point of jurisdiction? 2. Whether the deceased died due to and out of use of the motor vehicle? If so whether the petition is maintainable under section 163(A) M.V. Act? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? Is so what is just and reasonable compensation? 4. To what other relief/reliefs the claimants are entitled? 5. Whether the Government of Assam is liable to pay compensation to the claimants?” 4. If so whether the petition is maintainable under section 163(A) M.V. Act? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? Is so what is just and reasonable compensation? 4. To what other relief/reliefs the claimants are entitled? 5. Whether the Government of Assam is liable to pay compensation to the claimants?” 4. The Tribunal below vide a judgment dated 25.7.2016 dismissed the claim petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction which was the Issue No. 1 and in view of the said decision taken in respect to Issue No. 1, the tribunal did not go into the other issues. It is against the said judgment of the Tribunal that the petitioners has approached this court under article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The question of territorial jurisdiction has to be decided in terms of section 166(2) of the Act of 1988 and for the sake of convenience, the said sub-section is quoted herein below:- “166.(1)********* (2) Every application under sub-section(1) shall be made, at the opinion 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 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.” 6. A perusal of the said sub-section would go to show that an application seeking compensation shall be made at the option of the claimant either to the Claimant 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. 7. Admittedly, neither the claimant resides within the territorial jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Silchar nor the accident occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Tribunal. 7. Admittedly, neither the claimant resides within the territorial jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Silchar nor the accident occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Tribunal. Parties who have been arrayed as defendants and the addresses showed therein also goes to show that the defendants addresses are not within the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Silchar. However, it is relevant herein to take note of that at that relevant point of time there was no Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the district of Dima Hasao when the claim application was filed and as such the claimant approached the nearest Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 8. The moot question, therefore, arises that although the Act of 1988, stipulates within which territorial jurisdiction the claim petition can be filed but can the claimant in absence of a Claims Tribunal being set up approached any other Claims Tribunal to file an application seeking compensation. The Supreme Court had in the case of Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Limited, (2016) 3 SCC 43 had the occasion to deal-with the question of territorial jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal insofar as section 166(2) of the Act of 1988. Paragraph 16 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- “16………… The provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hypertechnical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated. 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 its business. In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure of justice. Moreover, in view of categorical decision of this court in Mantoo Sarkar, contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court failed to notice the provision of section 21, CPC.” In terms with the said judgment, it was held that the Act of 1988 is a benevolent legislation for the victims of accidents of negligent driving and the provisions for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of the accidents. A hyper technical approach in such matters should not be taken. 9. A hyper technical approach in such matters should not be taken. 9. In the instant case, the State of Assam is a party and has offices throughout the various districts of the State of Assam including a seat at Silchar. Taking into consideration that as the State of Assam has an office at Silchar and there was no Tribunal established in the district of Dima Hasao at that relevant time when the accident occurred or even at the time when the claim petition was filed, I am of the opinion that taking into consideration that the provisions of the Act of 1988 being a benevolent legislation for the victims of the accident of the negligent driving, it would be in the interest of justice that the said judgment dated 25.7.2016 is interfered with. 10. During the course of the arguments, Mr. P.S. Deka, the learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents submits that irrespective of the question of territorial jurisdiction on the basis of which the claim petition was dismissed, the claim proceedings are also otherwise not maintainable on the ground on being barred by limitation as well as also on the ground that the accident had happened on account of extremist killing and in respect to which the claimants have already taken ex-gratia payment of Rs. 5,00,000 from the State of Assam. These are questions which are on the merit and I am of the opinion that those issues can be very well raised before the Tribunal below as regards the entitlement of the claimants. More so the instant proceedings is a challenge to the dismissal of the claim proceedings only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and the Tribunal below did not address any other issue except the issue of territorial jurisdiction. 11. In that view of the matter as I have interfered with the judgment dated 25.7.2016, the Tribunal below, i.e., the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar is directed to proceed with the disposal of MAC Case No. 275/2013 in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal below on 27.1.2022. 12. The petition accordingly stands disposed of No Costs.