Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1395 (MAD)

Periyakaruppan (died) v. S. Navaneethakrishnan

2025-03-07

S.SOUNTHAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : S. Sounthar, J. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimants on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. 2. It is the case of the claimants that the wife of the first claimant and mother of the claimants 2 to 5 namely Ram @ Ramammal @ Ramiyammal died in a road accident involving a bus belonging to the respondents 2 and 3 on 20.01.2013. It was the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was travelling in a bus belonging to the second respondent Corporation from Palladam to Dharapuram Road. The driver of the first respondent corporation had driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner, without following the traffic rules, as a result of which, the deceased had fallen down from the bus and sustained injuries. Though she was taken to hospital, she succumbed to injuries latter. Hence, the claimants have filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 3. It is not in dispute that the bus belonging to the Corporation was attached to the Coimbatore depot of the second respondent. The claimants are residing at Poovarasampatti, Kinnimangalam, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. The driver of the second respondent bus is residing at Varatharajapuram, Kothapatti, Andipatti Taluk, Theni District. Therefore, it is clear that neither the claimants nor the respondents 1 and 2 are residing/functioning, within the territorial limits of the Tribunal at Bhavani. However, the branch of the second respondent Corporation is available at Karattupalayam, Anthiyur, Anthiyur Taluk, well within the territorial limits of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Erode District at Bhavani. Therefore, the third respondent/ General Manager of the Anthiyur Depot of second respondent Corporation was made as a party respondent before the Tribunal. 4. Though the second respondent filed counter denying the negligence on the part of the driver, no objection was raised by the second respondent with reference to the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 5. After filing counter by the second respondent, the respondents 2 and 3 remained exparte and failed to participate in the enquiry. The claimants were allowed to give evidence and accordingly, on the side of the claimants, the claimants 4 and 5 were examined as PW1 and PW2 and seven documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. 6. 5. After filing counter by the second respondent, the respondents 2 and 3 remained exparte and failed to participate in the enquiry. The claimants were allowed to give evidence and accordingly, on the side of the claimants, the claimants 4 and 5 were examined as PW1 and PW2 and seven documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. 6. The Tribunal on its own considered the question of territorial jurisdiction and dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. It is observed by Tribunal that neither the claimants nor the respondents 1 and 2 have been residing /functioning within the territorial limits of Bhavani Court. It is also observed that the third respondent was added as party, without any cause of action against it and hence, it was unnecessary party to the claim petition. When the claimants and the respondents 1 and 2 are not having residence /office within the territorial limits of the court concerned and taking into consideration the fact that the accident had also occurred outside the territorial limits of the Bhavani Court, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the second respondent Corporation is having branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of Bhavani Court and therefore, it can be treated as carrying on business, within the territorial limits of the Bhavani Court. To substantiate his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on the following judgments. i) Malati Sardar Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 43 ii) Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 244 iii) Balveer Batra Vs. New India Assurance Company and another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 4072. 8. It is settled law that the issue of territorial jurisdiction has to be raised at the earliest opportunity. In the case on hand, though the second respondent filed counter, the objection with regard to the question of territorial jurisdiction was not raised and thereafter, the respondents remained exparte. Only at the time of final enquiry, the Tribunal on its own, considered the point of territorial jurisdiction and non-suited the claimants. In the case on hand, though the second respondent filed counter, the objection with regard to the question of territorial jurisdiction was not raised and thereafter, the respondents remained exparte. Only at the time of final enquiry, the Tribunal on its own, considered the point of territorial jurisdiction and non-suited the claimants. Lack of territorial jurisdiction would not amount to inherent lack of jurisdiction and hence, the order or decree passed by the court not having territorial jurisdiction would not amount to nullity. The objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction is a procedural one and the same can be waived. 9. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 244 cited supra and the relevant portion is extracted here under. " 20. A distinction, however, must be made between a jurisdiction with regard to the subject-matter of the suit and that of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. Whereas, in the case falling within the former category the judgment would be a nullity, in the latter it would not be. It is not a case where the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in relation to the subject-matter of claim. As a matter of fact the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. If the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, in our opinion, the court should not have, in the absence of any finding of sufferance of any prejudice on the part of the first respondent, entertained the appeal". 10. In Malati Sardar Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 43 , the Apex Court restored the award passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the contesting insurance company has got branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal, before which the claim petition was filed. In the case on hand, the second respondent corporation has got branch office at Karattupalayam, Anthiyur depot, within the territorial limits of the Tribunal at Bhavani. The relevant observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malati Sardar case, cited supra is extracted which reads as follows. " 14. In the case on hand, the second respondent corporation has got branch office at Karattupalayam, Anthiyur depot, within the territorial limits of the Tribunal at Bhavani. The relevant observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malati Sardar case, cited supra is extracted which reads as follows. " 14. We are thus of the view that in the face of the judgment of this court in Mantoo Sarkar, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the award of the Tribunal in the absence of any failure of justice even if there was merit in the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, the fact remained that the Insurance company which was the main contesting respondent had its business at Kolkata." 11. The above decision is squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, this Court holds that when the second respondent Corporation has got a branch office, within the territorial limits of Tribunal at Bhavani, the Tribunal has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. In any event, the objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction has not been raised in the pleadings at the earliest opportunity. Therefore, this court is inclined to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal, dismissing the claim petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and remand the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that subsequent to the filing of the claim petition, the very same claimants have filed another MCOP No.1314 of 2015 and the same was dismissed for default on 04.04.2019. 13. When the above said claim petition was not dismissed on merits, I do not think, the dismissal of the said MCOP No.1314 of 2015 will come in the way of consideration of the present MCOP filed by the claimants on merits. 14. Accordingly, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh. Taking into consideration, the claim petition is of the year 2014, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the claim petition as early as possible, after giving necessary notice to the parties concerned. There shall be no order as to costs.