7.2. When the mother of the deceased approached the Apex Court, the Apex Court held that in absence of prejudice, no objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction be entertained. The Apex Court stated that, the view taken by High court is contradictory to the Apex Court ruling in Mantoo Sarkar's case wherein it held that with regard to Section 21 CPC, objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction could not be entertained in absence of any prejudice. In that case, it was further held that distinction was required to be drawn between a jurisdiction with regard to subject-matter on the one hand and that of territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions on the other. A judgment may be nullity in the former category, but not in the later. The Bench further stated that 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. The Apex Court further held that there is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting party, in such cases, has its business. In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure of justice”. The Apex Court also cautioned against adopting hyper technical approach in interpreting a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving and said that the provision for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hyper technical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated, the Bench said.
