Allowed

Mr. Basavaraj S. Patil Attur v. the Branch Manager

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2015WP/34554/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's refusal to entertain a claim due to jurisdictional doubts regarding the petitioner's residence. The High Court restored the claim petition, directed the Tribunal to issue fresh notices, and held the Tribunal lacked justification for rejection.

What did the court decide?

The claim petition was restored to file; the Tribunal directed to issue fresh notices and proceed with the matter; jurisdictional issue answered in favor of the petitioner.

Mr. Basavaraj S. Patil Attur Vs the Branch Manager — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.34554 OF 2015 (GM-AC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Mr. Basavaraj S Patil Attur, Son of Shankarappa Patil, Aged about 60 years, Resident of Basava Kalyana, District Bidar. Now at “Karanja”, No.76, RMV II Stage, 4^th Block (MLA Layout), New BEL Road, Bangalore 560 094.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri P.N.Hegde, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, No.327/5, Indocem House, Next to BHEL Factory, Mysore Road,

¶13

¶14

Bangalore 560 036.

¶15

Mallikarjun, Son of Madhav Rao, Major, C/o. Manikappa Biradar, Thipuranath, Basavakalyana, Bidar District 585 327.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 17.7.2015 at Annexure-A passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court at Bangalore in MVC No.6427/2013 and consequently hold that, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court at Bangalore has the jurisdiction to try the case.

¶19

This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Notice to respondents is dispensed with in the

¶22

circumstances of the case.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶24

¶25

The petitioner was the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, having suffered a motor accident and as a result of the injury sustained, he was seeking to claim compensation against the respondent.

¶26

The court below having framed issues on completion of pleadings, had framed a preliminary issue as to whether the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal was available on the contention raised by the Insurance Company – Respondent No.2 and has proceeded with extreme suspicion as to the petitioner being a resident of Bangalore, since there were documents which ambiguously indicated his address as Bidar as well as Bangalore. It is the very same doubt on which this Court had called upon the petitioner to produce a better document to show that his residential address was at Bangalore.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner now seeks to produce photocopies of the petitioner’s Passport indicating his residential address at Bangalore. Therefore, it was an extreme

¶28

¶29

view taken by the Tribunal in not entertaining the claim petition under social beneficial legislation. Notwithstanding that the petitioner may be a politician, he may have his place of residence both at Bangalore and Bidar. Since there are documents including passport which is now sought to be produced indicating that he has a residential address at Bangalore, he shall not be precluded from lodging his claim petition in Bangalore. The Tribunal was not just in rejecting the claim of the petitioner pertaining to an Insurance Company which has a pan-India presence and which is capable of resisting the claim petition, whether it is filed at Bangalore or Bidar. There is no justification in rejecting the claim petition on that ground. The petitioner is enabled to produce additional documents including the passport now sought to be produced before the Tribunal, and proceed further.

¶30

Therefore, the claim petition before the Tribunal stands restored to file. The Tribunal shall issue fresh notices on such

¶31

¶32

restoration and proceed with the matter in accordance with law and deal with the other issues that were framed. Insofar as the issue as regards the jurisdiction, stands answered in favour of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

Mr. Basavaraj S. Patil Attur v. the Branch Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Basavaraj S. Patil Attur v. the Branch Manager

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

Mohammed Zakir Vs Smt Shabana

G Girish S/O K Chandranna Vs the Commissioner

Khaleelulla Shariff @ Alyadh Vs Smt Shifa Shabnam

Mrs.Suhaa Parveez Vs M/S. Standard Chartered Bank

Sri Ramakrishna Recreation Association (R) Vs the Superintendent of Police

M Murugan S/O Late Palani Vs Jayamma W/O Madu