Omprakash vs M.P. Electricity Board and Others

R.K. Vijayvargiya, J.—This revision by the Defendant Applicant is directed against the order dated 20.12.1977 passed by the Civil Judge Class I, Maheshwar, camp Khargone in civil suit No. 7-B of 1976.

The facts giving rise to this revision briefly stated are as follows: The deceased Gourishanker died in a car accident near Balwada village within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. On an award having been given by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation, Indore the Plaintiff non Applicant No. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 9000/- as compensation to the heirs of the deceased who was an employee of the Plaintiff and died in the course of such employment. Thereafter the present suit was filed by the non Applicant No. 1 against the Applicant for reimbursement u/s 13 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act, on the ground that compensation was recovered from the Plaintiff in respect of an injury caused in the circumstances creating a legal liability of the Applicant. The Applicant contested the civil suit and inter alia, pleaded that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The jurisdiction of the trial Court was challenged on two grounds. Firstly that the claim was exclusively triable by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and was not enter-tainable by the civil Court. Secondly it was contended that the trial Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, because no part of the cause of action had accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court and the Defendant was ordinarily a resident of Indore and carried on business there. The trial Court has negatived the objection of the Defendant and held that it has jurisdiction to try the suit. The Defendant has assailed the order of the trial Court in this revision.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that this revision deserves to be dismissed. There is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicant that the claim was triable only by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to try the claims against the owner or the driver of the motor-vehicle or insurer as the case may be for compensation for injury arising out of use of a motor-vehicle. It has no jurisdiction to try any claim against the stranger. The present is not a claim for compensation for injury arising out of use of motor vehicle properly so called. But is a claim for reimbursement from a stranger of the amount paid by the Plaintiff under the award of the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation. In the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India 1975 A.C.J. 33 (A.P.) and Trustee of the Port of Madras v. Bombay Co. (P) Ltd. Madras 1966 A.C.J. 351 (Mad), it has been held that the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain claims for indemnity u/s 13 of the Workmen''s Compensation Act. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid decisions and of the opinion that the trial Court has jurisdiction to try the suit

It is true that the award was given by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation at Indore and the amount was also deposited at Indore. But it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action has accrued within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. Cause of action is a bundle of factors which the Plaintiff is required to prove in order to claim relief in the suit. In this case the Plaintiff will have to prove that the compensation has been recovered from him in respect of an injury caused in the circumstances creating a legal liability of Defendant. The Plaintiff will have to prove that the accident was caused and the Defendant was legally liable to indemnify the Plaintiff. In this case it is not disputed that the accident was caused within the territorial, jurisdiction of the trial Court. In the circumstances atleast one part of the cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court and it has jurisdiction to try the suit. Thus, there is no merit in the second contention of the learned Counsel for the Applicant also.

As a result of the discussion aforesaid this revision fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs of this revision.