Partly allowed

Tamilselvi v. Arumugam

Madras HC11 Mar 2016CMA/2628/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order dismissing the claim petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in conducting a full trial when jurisdiction was the preliminary issue. The order was set aside, and the matter remanded to the Salem Tribunal with directions to transfer r

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Tribunal dated 19.06.2015 in M.C.O.P.No.1443 of 2013 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the jurisdiction Tribunal at Salem for disposal within six months, with direction

Tamilselvi Vs Arumugam — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE : 11.03.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶7

C.M.A.No.2628 of 2015

¶8

Tamilselvi 2. Kandasamy .... Appellants/Petitioners

¶9

– Vs -

¶10

Arumugam

¶11

The New India Assurance Company Limited

¶12

17, Kottai Main Road, Sevapet, Salem.

¶13

.... Respondents/Respondents

¶14

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and decree dated 19.06.2015 in M.C.O.P.No.1443 of 2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) Namakkal.

¶15

For Appellants : Mr.K.Suryanarayanan

¶16

For Respondent : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam - R2 R1 : Exparte

¶17

(The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.Sudhakar,J)

¶18

Claimants have filed an appeal against the award dated 19.06.2015 in M.C.O.P.No.1443 of 2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) Namakkal, wherein the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

¶19

The Tribunal after fulfledged trial, which we find is totally unnecessary, dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction. If the Tribunal was rolling on the issue of jurisdiction, it should have dismissed the petition at the threshold itself. Since no documents have been filed to prove that the claimants were residing in the address shown in the Claim Petition, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it would amount to forum shopping.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants placed reliance on the decision in the case of Malati Sardr V. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others reported in 2016(1) TN MAC 1 (SC) and submitted that since the provision is a benevolent provision, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the appeal.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

¶23

In the decision relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the case of Malati Sardr V. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others reported in 2016(1) TN MAC 1 (SC), the Honourable Supreme Court, while dealing with the territorial jurisdiction, held as follows:

¶24

“ 12. We are, thus, of the view that in the face of the judgment of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra), the High Court was not justified in setting aside the award of the Tribunal in absence of any failure of justice even if there was merit in the plea of lack of Territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, the fact remained that the Insurance Company which was the main contesting Respondent had its business at Kolkata.”

¶25

In the light of the above, we find no other option except to set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the matter back to the Tribunal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly states that the address shown in the petition is that of the Advocate. However, since the accident happened in Salem, the claimants have to approach the Tribunal at Salem.

¶26

Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal dated 19.06.2015 in M.C.O.P.No.1443 of 2013 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Principal District Court, Namakkal. The Principal District Judge, Namakkal is directed to transfer the claim petition with all records relating to this case to the jurisdiction Tribunal at Salem. The Jurisdiction Tribunal, Salem is directed to dispose of the petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such claim petition. The Jurisdiction Tribunal at Salem is also directed to ascertain the correct address of the claimants.

¶27

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

With the above direction, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by way of remand. No costs.

¶29

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS III )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
sl
To
1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(Principal District Judge)
Namakkal.
2. The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
1 cc to Mr.K. Suryanarayanan, Advocate, Sr. 15662
1 cc to Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam, Advocate, Sr. 15691
C.M.A.No.2628 of 2015
KK (CO)
kk 23/3

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Tamilselvi v. Arumugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamilselvi v. Arumugam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager Claims Vs D.Karthick

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs v.Padmavathy

M/S. New India Assurance Co. Vs Mr. Vijayakumar @ Vijay

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs C.Vilvaraj

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs S.Chitra

M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mr.P.Manoharan