Case Note & Summary
The judgment pertains to two Miscellaneous First Appeals filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and award dated 10.07.2013 passed in MVC No.2118/2012 and MVC No.2117/2012 on the file of the I Addl. SCJ & M.A.C.T, Bengaluru. The Tribunal had returned the claim petitions on the point of jurisdiction with a direction to present them before the proper jurisdictional tribunal. The appellants, who were the claimants in the original petitions, were residents of Bengaluru and had filed the claim petitions before the Bengaluru Tribunal. The sole legal issue was whether the Tribunal was correct in returning the petitions for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court, relying on Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides four alternative forums for filing a claim petition, held that the claimants had the option to file the petition at the place of their residence. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the matters were remitted back to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits. The court directed the Tribunal to restore the petitions to their original numbers and proceed in accordance with law. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 166(2) - Claimant's Choice - The Tribunal erred in returning the claim petitions on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides four alternative forums for filing a claim petition: (i) where the accident occurred, (ii) where the claimant resides, (iii) where the claimant carries on business, or (iv) where the defendant resides or carries on business. The claimants, who resided in Bengaluru, had the option to file the petition in Bengaluru. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remitted for adjudication on merits. (Paras 1-5) B) Motor Vehicles Act - Return of Petition - Section 166(2) - Improper Exercise of Power - The Tribunal's action of returning the claim petitions for lack of jurisdiction was improper as the claimants had exercised their statutory right to choose the forum. The High Court held that the Tribunal must entertain the petitions and proceed in accordance with law. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Bengaluru was justified in returning the claim petitions for lack of territorial jurisdiction when the claimants resided within its jurisdiction?
Final Decision
The appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 10.07.2013 passed in MVC No.2118/2012 and MVC No.2117/2012 are set aside. The matters are remitted to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits. The Tribunal is directed to restore the petitions to their original numbers and proceed in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction under Section 166(2) MV Act is determined by claimant's choice
- Tribunal cannot return petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction if filed at place of residence or business
- Section 166(2) provides four alternative forums
- Claimant's choice is paramount
