Allowed

Manoj Kumar v. Mohan Lal Meena & Ors.

Delhi HC10 Feb 2016CM(M)/325/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge bench allowed the appellant's petition holding that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Delhi lacked jurisdiction, ordered the impugned judgment set aside, and restored the claim petition for further proceedings based on jurisdictional grounds.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; claim petition restored for further proceedings; parties directed to appear on 06.04.2016.

Manoj Kumar Vs Mohan Lal Meena & Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~3

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of Decision: 10^th February, 2016

¶4

CM(M) 325/2013

¶5

MANOJ KUMAR

¶6

..... Petitioner Through Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv.

¶7

versus

¶8

MOHAN LAL MEENA & ORS.

¶9

..... Respondent Through Mr. Suman Bagga and Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advs. for R-3

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):

¶13

The claim petition was filed by the appellant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 16.08.2012 for compensation on account of injuries suffered by him on 01.08.2007 at about 08.09 AM in the area of Kharandi River, Dausa, Rajasthan involving motor vehicle bearing registration No.RJ 14 1P 6403 (the offending vehicle) statedly owned by the second respondent and driven by the first respondent. The offending vehicle was admittedly insured against third party risk with the third respondent herein.

¶14

The Tribunal by judgment dated 30.08.2012 declined to entertain the claim petition directing that it be returned for the reason the Tribunal in Delhi lacked necessary territorial jurisdiction, giving liberty to the claimant to file it before the appropriate forum. In reaching this

¶15

CM(M) No.325/2013 Page 1 of 3

¶16

conclusion it, inter alia , noted that the accident had occurred in District Dausa, Rajasthan, the owner of the offending vehicle as also the driver resided or worked for gain in District Dausa, Rajasthan and further observing that the insurance policy has been issued by the third respondent which had its office in District Gurgaon, Haryana. Pertinently, the Tribunal also recorded that the claimant had failed to prove by any formal documentary evidence that he had been a resident of Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi which was the address given in his own particulars in the cause title.

¶17

The claimant feeling aggrieved has come up with the petition at hand before this Court, inter alia, arguing that even a temporary residence in Delhi should suffice for invoking the jurisdiction of Tribunal at Delhi in terms of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and, further, on the ground that the cover note of the insurance policy (page 39A of the paper book) shows that it was issued by the office of the third respondent at Shaheedjeet Singh Marg, New Delhi, thus, belying the contention of the insurance company that the policy was actually issued by its office at Gurgaon, Haryana.

¶18

Even if the question of residence of the claimant were to be kept aside, the rubber stamp endorsement on the cover note referred to above indicating the issuing office to be located in New Delhi renders the approach of the Tribunal incorrect. The fact that the policy was issued by Delhi office of the third respondent obviously escaped the notice of the Tribunal.

¶19

Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside. The claim petition is restored on the file of the Tribunal for

¶20

CM(M) No.325/2013 Page 2 of 3

¶21

further proceedings in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 06.04.2016.

¶22

The petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶23

Tribunal’s record shall be returned.

¶24

R.K. GAUBA

¶25

(JUDGE)

¶26

FEBRUARY 10, 2016 VLD

¶27

CM(M) No.325/2013 Page 3 of 3

Manoj Kumar v. Mohan Lal Meena & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar v. Mohan Lal Meena & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashid Jung Vs Union of India & Anr.

Rohit Khera Vs Komal Gandhi Khera

Govt of NCT of Delhi Vs M/S Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Dhirendra Singh Vs Suman

Noor Fatma Vs Zahiruddin & Anr.

Gaushala, Mehroli Dehat Vs Sagir Malik

Gaushala, Mehroli Dehat Vs Ashok Kumar

Senbo Engineering Limited Vs Rabindra Nandi

Gurpal Singh Vs Meenu & Ors.

Era Constructions India Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co.Ltd.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mohd Yamin & Ors.

Virendar Parkash Sharma Vs Ram Udgar & Ors.

Sandeep Kumar and Anr. Vs Bajaj Allianz Gerneral Insurance Co. Ltd.