Allowed

Puthukara Vijayan v. Biju

Kerala HC9 Dec 2016OP (MAC)/3886/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to dismiss the claim based on an office objection without considering the claimant's statutory choice of forum under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside. Tribunal directed to try both claim petitions and dispose of them within four months with priority over other cases.

Puthukara Vijayan Vs Biju — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

OP (MAC).No. 3886 of 2011 (O)

¶6

(AGAINST COMMON ORDER DATED 9/11/2011 IN UNNUMBERED OP(MV) OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR)

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. PUTHUKARA VIJAYAN, 65 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, "VIJESH BHAVAN",

¶9

NALLOORNAD P.O., MANANTHAVADY, PIN -670 645.

¶10

2. VIJESH P.V., 29 YEARS, S/O.PUTHUKARA VIJAYAN, "VIJESH BHAVAN", NALLOORNAD P.O.,

¶11

MANANTHAVADY, PIN -670 645.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. BIJU, S/O.GEORGE, 5/28, VAKAYIL HOUSE, EDAVAKA P.O., MANANTHAVADY, MANANTODDY, PIN -670 645.

¶15

2. SOORAJ M.M., 29 YEARS, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN, MAVUNKAL HOUSE, THAVINHAL P.O, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD, PIN -670 644.

¶16

3. M/S.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, OPP. TOWN HALL, TIRUR, PIN -676 101.

¶17

R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKKAD

¶18

THIS OP (MAC) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

OP(MAC) NO.3886/2011

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT-P1. TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION DATED 26.8.2011 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P2. TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION DATED 26.8.2011 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P3. TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED 9TH NOVEMBER, 2011 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR ON THE UNNUMBERED CLAIM PETITIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶32

O.P.(MAC) No. 3886 of 2011

¶33

Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

1.This original petition is filed challenging the common order passed by the MACT, Tirur, in an unnumbered original petition, claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶36

2.The petitioners are the applicants before the MACT, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor accident. The petitioners arrayed the Tirur Branch of the New India Assurance Co. in the party array as the 3^rd respondent. The Registry of the tribunal raised an objection that without producing any document, the insurer could not have been impleaded. The office note would state that the petitioners have to produce the insurance certificate or any other certificate showing that the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, who is impleaded as the 3^rd

¶37

O.P.(MAC) No. 3886 of 2011

¶38

..2..

¶39

respondent in the claim petition, is within the jurisdiction of this Court, which is an obvious attempt of the office of the tribunal to find out the jurisdiction of the MACT to try and dispose of the case. Since the petitioners were unable to produce any document, by Ext.P3 detailed order, the tribunal sustained the objection, noting that there is no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, and directed the petitioners to present before the tribunal having jurisdiction. This order is under challenge in this original petition.

¶40

3.Insofar as the issue relating to the jurisdiction, it is provided under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), that the master of deciding jurisdiction is left to the discretion of the claimant. The claimant can choose the tribunal having jurisdiction over the area, in which the accident occurred, or the tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides, or within the

¶41

O.P.(MAC) No. 3886 of 2011

¶42

..3..

¶43

local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. It is not based on the convenience of the insurance company and whether the claimant has impleaded a proper party is not a matter to be adjudicated on the judicial side. The jurisdiction is not dependant upon the address of the respondent in the claim petition, on the other hand, it is based on the option of the claimant. That being so, it is unfortunate that the tribunal went on to sustain the objection without considering the impact of Section 166(2) of the Act in this regard. Further, question regarding jurisdiction has to be adjudicated on judicial side and it is not the business of the office of the judiciary to decide.

¶44

4.At this juncture, the learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company submits that they have no role in the delay occurred in the proceedings. This Court is of the view that the delay occurred on account of the untenable objection raised by the office of the tribunal.

¶45

5.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, as follows;

¶46

O.P.(MAC) No. 3886 of 2011

¶47

..4..

¶48

• The impugned order is set aside. The tribunal is directed to try both the claim petitions and dispose of the same within a period of four months, giving priority over other cases.

¶49

Sd/- A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶50

bka/-

Puthukara Vijayan v. Biju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puthukara Vijayan v. Biju

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

A.Abdulla Haji Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative So,Kannu

Manheri Lakshmi Amma Vs Registrar

M.R.Kesavan Vs State of Kerala and Another

P.M.Abdul Nazar Vs Deputy Tahsildar (Rr)

Libu.K.Lukose Vs the District Executive Officer

Annoor Dental College and Hospital Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences