High Court set aside an order remitting a concluded motor accident claim petition due to jurisdictional concerns, directing the Tribunal to pronounce judgment immediately to prevent prejudice during pandemic lockdown.
Order dated 24.04.2019 set aside; direction issued to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to pronounce judgment in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.987 of 2012.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(PD).No.2364 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.08.2020
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. GOVINDARAJ
C.R.P.(PD).No.2364 of 2019
Udhaya Pratap Singh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.D.Sathish Kumar
2.Bharati – Axa General Insurance Company,
No.162, Metro Plaza,
2 nd Floor, Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order dated 24.04.2019 and made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.987 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Poonamallee, III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.
For Petitioner : Ms.M.Malar Terry Chella Raja For Respondent : Mr.S.Arun Kumar *****
1/7
C.R.P.(PD).No.2364 of 2019
O R D E R
For an accident that had taken place in Chithalapakkam, the
petitioner herein laid a claim before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal – III, (Additional District Court, Tiruvallur) at Poonamallee. The same was numbered as M.C.O.P.No.987 of 2012 and the trial was concluded. The counsel for both sides have submitted their arguments and case was adjourned
for verdict.
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mantoor Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company reported in 2009 (1) TNMAC 68 , is that the claim petition can be
filed only where Insurance Company has its branch office and the judgment of this Court in Dhanalakshmi and 3 others Vs. Sivanandham and another held
that claim petitions cannot be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. In the present
claim petition, the Insurance Company does not have its branch office at Poonamallee or within the jurisdiction of that Court. The place of accident,
2/7
C.R.P.(PD).No.2364 of 2019
residential or office address of the parties are also not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Hence it was returned to the claimant to present it before the Court having jurisdiction,
Civil Revision. Heard the submissions made by both sides.
throughout the country. But it is necessary to look into the consequences of the order and its impact in prevailing pandemic situation. The Central and State Governments have taken a conscientious policy decision to announce lock down, thereby to prevent communal spread of the viral infection. The lock down protocol imposes restricted movement, except for essential, emergent movements, that too with permission granted by the authorities. The country is fighting an invisible enemy without knowing from whom, when, where and how it will infect one. Many of the asymptomatic carries are on the move without knowing that they are infected and unknowingly spread the infection.
In such alarming situation, self preservation is the need of the hour, not due to the fear of ones own life but for the welfare of the fellow mortals.
3/7
C.R.P.(PD).No.2364 of 2019
to High Courts and Sub-ordinate Courts to avoid clustering and to prevent spread of viral infection. Practically it is not feasible for the Courts to conduct trial. In these peculiar circumstances as directed by the Tribunal to present the claim before the Competent Court having jurisdiction, will lead to re-doing the entire exercise, which has already been concluded. It will cause prejudice to the claimant to present it to an equivalent Court having powers of a District Court, which is far away from his residence. It will not only expose the petitioner to Corona Virus, but also the officials of the respondent Company such as legal Manager, Insurance Inspector and Surveyor and official witnesses like Investigating Officer, Doctor apart from eye witnesses, counsel for parties and Officers of the Court. As discussed above, parties are not fully equipped with
infra structure to conduct and participate on line trial. It is not the case that Tribunal is not empowered to try and decide identical matters relating to Motor Accident Claims, but infact itself is a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal designated for that purpose. The claim petition is returned after conclusion of
all the proceedings and at the stage of pronouncing judgment. The Tribunal would have pronounced the orders, but for the direction of this Court.
4/7
C.R.P.(PD).No.2364 of 2019
will apply prospectively or retrospectively. The very object of the direction by itself to avoid misuse or abuse of the process and not to prejudice the parties concerned, particularly the respondents. Adherence of the direction, will prejudice not only the claimant but also the respondent and others as discussed above. Hence, in the especial pandemic situation, as an exception, it is just to exercise the powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As the legal maxim goes “Actus Curiae neminem gravabit – meaning, the act of Court harms no one.” For, the welfare and safety of all concerned and to harm none, a direction shall be issued to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur) at Poonamallee to pass orders in the claim petition filed by the petitioner in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.987 of 2012.
dated 24.04.2019 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Court, Tiruvallur) at Poonamallee, is set aside and a direction is issued to pronounce the judgment in the above matter. However, it
is made clear that the present order is passed in extra-ordinary circumstances, shall not be taken as a precedent by any one.
5/7
C.R.P.(PD).No.2364 of 2019
The Civil Revision Petition is ordered in the above terms. No
costs.
06.08.2020
bri
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
III Additional District Court,
Tiruvallur,
Poonamallee.
6/7
C.R.P.(PD).No.2364 of 2019
M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
bri
C.R.P.(PD).No.2364 of 2019
06.08.2020
7/7
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can be directed to pronounce judgment on a concluded trial despite prior directions on territorial jurisdiction, given pandemic lockdown constraints.
Whether setting aside an order dismissing a claim petition for lack of jurisdiction is justified under Article 227 to prevent prejudice during the pandemic.
Whether the act of the Tribunal in issuing directions instead of judgment falls under the protection Actus Curiae neminem gravabit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mantoor Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance CompanyReferred¶17
Mantoor Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company reported in 2009 (1) TNMAC 68
Dhanalakshmi and 3 others Vs. Sivanandham and anotherReferred¶18
Dhanalakshmi and 3 others Vs. Sivanandham and another
Udhaya Pratap Singh
D.Sathish Kumar
Bharati – Axa General Insurance Company
M. GOVINDARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
