Partly allowed

Ganeshi Bai v. National Insurance Company Limited

Chhattisgarh HC7 Mar 2022WP227/46/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a writ petition in part, setting aside the dismissal of a claim application by the Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa, for lack of jurisdiction and ordered the return of the application to the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional Tribunal at Balodabazar.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in part; impugned order dismissing the claim application set aside; application directed to be returned to petitioners to present before the jurisdictional Claims Tribunal.

Ganeshi Bai Vs National Insurance… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WP227 No. 46 of 2019

¶5

Ganeshi Bai W/o Late Tilakram Nirmalkar Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Lawan, Police Station And Tahsil Kasdol, District - Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Harish Kumar S/o Late Tilakram Nirmalkar Aged About 15 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Ganeshi Bai, Aged 42 Years, W/o Late Tilakram Nirmalkar, R/o Village Lawan, Police Station And Tahsil Kasdol, District - Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh

¶7

Hari Om S/o Late Tilakram Nirmalkar Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Ganeshi Bai, Aged 42 Years, W/o Late Tilakram Nirmalkar, R/o Village Lawan, Police Station And Tahsil Kasdol, District - Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh.

¶8

Kanta Bai W/o Late Ram Dular Nirmalkar Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Lawan, Police Station And Tahsil Kasdol, District - Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

National Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office Mainroad Kosabadi, Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶12

---- Respondent

¶13

For Petitioners : Shri Somnath Verma, Advocate

¶14

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

Order On Board

07/03/2022

Heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) before the Motor Accident Claims

¶19

-2-

¶20

Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa, seeking compensation against the motor accidental death of Late Tilakram Nirmalkar, husband of petitioner No.1, father of petitioners No. 2 & 3 and son of petitioner No.4. Learned Claims Tribunal at Janjgir-Champa, upon considering the Claim Application filed under Section 166 of the Act, came to conclusion that in view of provision under Section 166(2) of the Act, the Claims Tribunal at Janjgir- Champa is not having jurisdiction to entertain Claim Application and dismissed the claim. He contended that if at all the Claims Tribunal came to conclusion based on material available along with Claim Application that he is having no jurisdiction under sub-Section (2) of Section 166 of the Act, then the Claims Tribunal ought to have returned back the Claim Application for filing it before the jurisdictional Claims Tribunal, whereas the Claims Tribunal at Janjgir-Champa dismissed the claim which is contrary to law.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

Perusal of impugned order would show that learned Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa recorded that the address shown of the deceased is within the territorial jurisdiction of district -Balodabazar and accident has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of district- Balodabazar, thus, the Claims Tribunal at Janjgir-Champa is having no jurisdiction, which cannot be said to be erroneous.

¶23

Learned Claims Tribunal has further granted liberty to the applicants/claimants to file Claim Application before the Claims Tribunal at Balodabazar. However, in the last line of the impugned

¶24

-3-

¶25

order, the Claims Tribunal, instead of returning back the Claim Application, has held the Claim Application to be dismissed.

¶26

In view of provision under Order 7 Rule 10 of CPC, if the Court/Tribunal comes to conclusion that Court before whom the case is presented is having no jurisdiction to entertain case/suit, then the suit is to be returned back to the plaintiff for presenting it before the Court having jurisdiction.

¶27

In view of the above, part of the impugned order passed by Claims Tribunal, Janjgir-Champa whereby the Tribunal 'dismissed' the Claim Application is liable to be and is accordingly set aside. Claim Application filed by the petitioners/claimants is directed to be returned to petitioners/claimants to be presented before the jurisdictional Claims Tribunal.

¶28

The writ petition is accordingly allowed in part with the aforementioned observation/direction.

¶29

Sd/-----/-/-

¶30

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶31

Praveen

Ganeshi Bai v. National Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganeshi Bai v. National Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mahima Sharma Vs Gaurav Tyagi

Shiv Kumar Adile and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Kejharam Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pankaj Kumar Baghel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

R.S.Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Jeevan @ Chhotu Sahu @ Jeevan Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh