AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—The Tribunal has dismissed claim petition. Therefore, claimants are before this court. I have heard Sri. C.M. Venkata Reddy, learned counsel for claimants and Sri. Thippeswamy, learned counsel for Sri. M.S. Sriram, learned counsel for Insurance Company.
The claimants have lost their daughter by name Chandrika (a girl aged about 9 years) in a road traffic accident that took place on 22.05.2008 on Aniganahalli Bus Stop on Kolar-Bangarpet Main Road, within the jurisdiction of Bangarpet Police Station. The registered owner and insurer of vehicle involved in accident are from Kolar and Chittoor respectively.
The claimants presented the instant claim petition before MACT at Kolar. The I-respondent did not contest claim petition. The Insurance Company filed objections, denying the averments of claim petition and also contended that claimants had already filed MVC No 4410/2008, on the file of MACT at Bangalore. Therefore, the instant claim petition is not maintainable.
The Tribunal framed issues. The parties led evidence. The Tribunal has dismissed claim petition on the ground that claimants had filed MVC No. 4410/2008 on the file of MACT at Bangalore and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.02.2010. The claimants by suppressing this fact have prosecuted the instant claim petition (MVC No. 46/2009).
The learned counsel for claimants would submit that signatures of claimants were obtained and they were misused to file claim petition before MACT at Bangalore. MVC No. 4410/2008 was filed without consent and knowledge, however, claimants have contended that they had filed claim petition in MVC No. 46/2009, on the file of MACT at Kolar.
As could be seen from cause title, claim petition in MVC No. 4410/2008 was filed before MACT at Bangalore by impleading Regional Officer of M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, only to invoke territorial jurisdiction of MACT at Bangalore.
It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that accident took place within the jurisdiction of MACT at Kolar. The I-respondent is a resident of Kolar. The branch office of Insurance Company which had issued insurance policy is situate at Chittoor. In the circumstances, MVC No. 4410/2008 should not have been filed before the claims tribunal at Bangalore. For the reasons not apparent on record, the Regional Officer of M/s. Oriental Insurance Company situate at M.G. Road, Bangalore was also arrayed as respondent No. 3 to invoke the jurisdiction of MACT at Bangalore. The claim petition in MVC No. 4410/2008 filed before MACT at Bangalore, was without territorial jurisdiction. The claimants have contended that MVC No. 4410/2008 was filed without their consent and knowledge. The claimants had no reasons to appear before MACT at Bangalore.
It is true that provisions of Order IX CPC are applicable to the proceedings before the claims tribunal.
In the case on hand, claim petition in MVC No. 4410/2008 was filed before MACT at Bangalore, without the consent and knowledge of claimants. Above all, MACT at Bangalore did not have jurisdiction to try MVC No. 4410/2008. The claimants had filed instant claim petition in MVC No. 46/2009 before jurisdictional claims tribunal at Kolar. There is no evidence on record that claimants had knowledge of claim petition filed in MVC No. 4410/2008.
It is also seen from records that claim petition in MVC No. 4410/2008 was filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ''the Act'') and instant claim petition was filed u/s 163A of the Act.
In the circumstances, Tribunal should not have held that claimants are guilty of suppression of facts. The facts and circumstances would suggest that MVC No. 4410/2008 was filed before MACT at Bangalore, without the knowledge and consent of claimants by obtaining their signatures when they were under agony after the accident. Therefore, I pass the following:-
ORDER
The appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remanded to Tribunal for reconsideration in the light of observations made herein and in accordance with law. Parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence if they so desire.