MALATI SARDARversusNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.

                         [2016] l S.C.R. 601



                         MALATI SARDAR                                    A
                                  v.
    NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ORS.
                    (Civil Appeal No. 10of2016)
                         JANUARY 5, 2016                                  B

     [ANIL R. DAVE AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: s.166(2) - Compensation -
Territorial jurisdiction -Accident took place in Hoogly and claimant
also resided in Hoogly - Office of respondent at Kolkata - Claim
petition filed before Tribunal at Kolkata -Award passed by Tribunal
                                                                          c
on the ground that registered office of the insurance company was
within its territorial limits - High Court set aside award holding
that Kolkata Tribunal could not exercise jurisdiction - Held: Hm•ing
regard to s.24 CPC, objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction could
not be entertained in absence of any prejudice - The provision for        D
compensation is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents
of negligent driving - Hyper technical approach in such matters
should not be taken - There is no bar to a claim petition being filed
at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting
parties in such cases, has its business - In such cases, there is no
                                                                          E
prejudice to any party and no failure of justice - Moreover, in view
of categorical decision of this Court in Mtmloo Sarkar contrary
view taken by the High Court is not sustained.
      Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
      (2009) 2 SCC 244: 2008 (17) SCR 753 - relied on.
                                                                          F
      Union of India VS. GS. Grewal (2014) 7 sec 303;
      Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Director, Health Services,
      Haryana (2013) 10 SCC 136: 2013 (8) SCR 77 -
      held inapplicable.
      Kiran SinJ?h vs. Chaman Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340: ·                   G
      1955 SCR 117 - referred to.
                        Case Law Reference
(2914) 1 sec 303              held inapplicable.         Para4
2013 (8) SCR 77               held inapplicable.         Para4
2008 (17) SCR 753             relied on.                 Para4            H
                                 601
602             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] I S.C.R.


A     1955 SCR 117                       referred to.              Para 11
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. I 0 of
      2016
            From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2015 at the High Court
      of Calcutta in F. M.A. No. 1106 of2012.
B
            S. S. Sarangi, Dr. Suman! Bhardwaj, Rakesh Kailash Sharma
      (for Mridula Ray Bharadwaj) for the Appellant.
            C. K. Gola, Abhishek Gola, Viresh B. Saharya, A. Agarwal for
      the Respondent.
C            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,J. I. Leave granted. The question
      raised in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in setting
      aside the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kolkata only
      on the ground that the Tribunal did not have the territorialjurisdiction.
D
             2. On 7"' May, 2008, the deceased Diganta Sardar, aged 26 years,
      a school teacher, unmarried son of the appellant was hit by Bus No. WB/
      l 5-A-4959 insured with the respondent company at Hoogly, in the State
      of West Bengal and died. He was travelling on motor cycle of his
      colle:ague, Uttam Samui as a pillion rider. The appellant filed an
 E    application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the
      Act") for compensation before the Tribunal at Kolkata.
             3. Rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus having
      been established, the Tribunal, applying the multiplier of 13 on account
      of age of the appellant being 4 7 years, and taking into account the income
 F    of the deceased and other relevant factors, fixed compensation of
      Rs.16,12,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing
      of claim petition vide its Award dated 7"' February, 2012.
             4. The respondent company preferred an appeal before the High
      Court on the only ground oflack of territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
G     The objection of the respondent was that the accident took place at
      Hoogly and the claimant resided at Hoogly. Office of the respondent
      bein!~ at Kolkata did not attract jurisdiction of the Kolkata Tribunal.
      Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Union oflndia
      vs. gs. Grewal L and Jtrgmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Director, Health

H     '(2014) 7 sec 303
 MALATI SARDAR v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY                                  603
        LIMITED [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

Services, Haryanal apart from the High Court judgments. The appellant         A
supported the award by placing reliance on judgment of this Court in
Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited ~ apart
from other judgments.
      5. The High Court upheld the objection of the respondent and
allowed the appeal of the respondent company and directed refund of           B
the amount deposited/paid, if any, to the respondent company. It was
observed:
      "In the instant case admittedly the accident took place in
      Hooghly. The claimant, as evident from the cause title, resides
      at Hoogly. The owner, the respondent, too resides at Hooghly. c
      Hooghly, no doubt, is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of
      the Tribunal at Kolkata. The argument of the respondent-
      claimant that the Kolkata Tribunal exercises jurisdiction since
      the regional office of the insurance company is situated within
      its territorial limits cannot be accepted as the last option under
      section 166(2) cannot be construed to mean the residential D
      address of the company as a company can have a business
      or an office address and not a residential address. Therefore,
      the Tribunal at Kolkata had no jurisdiction to entertain the
      claim petition. In this regard we follow the principles of law
      laid down in New India Assurance Company Limited vs. E
      Kustiswar Pramanik (supra) {2010(1) TA.C. 405 (Cal), in
      Nirmala Devi judgment delivered on 18'• July, 2012 in FMA
      724 of 2008 with C. 0. T 22 of 2008 (The New Indian
      Assurance Col. Ltd. vs. Si/pi Dutta & Ors.) and we respectfully
      disagree with the judgment in FMA 1454 of 2013 (National
      Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Alpana Jana & Ors.)".                   F

      6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
       7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High
Court was in grave error in holding that the Kolkata Tribunal could not
exercise jurisdiction on the ground that registered office of the insurance    G
company was within its territorial limits. Jurisdiction was available under
Section 166(2) if the defendant/respondent in a claim petition was residing
within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The residence in the case of
juristic person included its Principal office. In any case, the view taken
'(2013) 10 sec 136
'(2009) 2 sec 244                                                              H
604            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016) I S.C.R.


A     by the High Court is directly in conflict with the law laid down by this
      Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra) under which the High Court could
      interfere in such cases only ifthere was failure ofjustice. The decisions
      of this Court in G.S. Grewal and Jagmittar Sain ]Jhagat have no
      application to the fact situation at hand.
B            8. Learned counsel for the respondent company on the other.
      hand., supported the view taken by the High Court and submitted that the
      place of residence within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section
      I 66(2) of the Act could not mean the place of business. He sought to
      distinguish the view taken by this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra).

c             9. The question for consideration thus is whether the Tribunal at
      Kolkata had the jurisdiction to decide the claim application under Section
       l 66 of the Act when the accidenttook place outside Kolkata jurisdiction
      and the claimant also resided outside Kolkata jurisdiction, but the
      respondent being a juristic person carried on business at Kolkata. Further
      question is whether in absence of failure ofjustice, the High Court could
D     set aside the award of the Tribunal on the ground of Jack of territorial
      jurisdiction.
             JO. In our view, the matter is fully covered by decisions of this
      Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra). It will be worthwhile to quote the
      statutory provision of Section 166(2) of the Act:
 E
             "166. Application for compensation. -       •        •        •
            (2) Every application under sub-section (I) shall be made, at
            the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having
            iurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or
 F
            to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose
            iurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or
            within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant
            resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars
            as may be prescribed:
            Provided that where no claim for compensation under Section
 G
            140 is made in such application, the application shall conrain
            a separate statement to that effect immediately before the
            signature ofthe applicant. "
             11. In Mantoo Sarkar (supra), the insurance company had a
      branch at Nainital. Accident took place outside the jurisdiction ofNainital
 H
   MALATI SARDAR v. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY                                   605
          LIMITED [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

  Tribunal. The claimant remained in the hospital at Bareilly and thereafter     A
  shifted to Pilibhit where he was living for a long time. However, at the
  time of filing of the claim petition hewas working as a labourer in Nainital
· District. The High Court took the view that Nainital Tribunal had no
  jurisdiction and reversed the view taken by the Tribunal to the effect
  that since the office of the insurance company was at Nainital, the Tribunal
                                                                                 B
  had the jurisdiction. This Court reversed the view of the High Court. It
  was held that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal was wider than the civil
  court. The Tribunal could follow the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure
  (CPC). Having regard to Section 21 CPC, objection oflack of territorial
  jurisdiction could not be entertained in absence of any prejudice.
  Distinction was required to be drawn between a jurisdiction with regard        c
  to subject matter on the one hand and that of territorial and pecuniary
  jurisdiction on the other. A judgment may be nullity in the former category,
  but not in the later. Reference was also made to earlier decision of this
   Court in Kiran Singh vs. C/wman Paswant_ to the following effect :
         "With reference to objections relating to territorial jurisdiction, D
        Section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code enacts that no objection
        to the place of suing should be allowed by an appellate or
        revisional court, unless there was a consequent failure of
        justice. It is the same principle that has been adopted in Section
        11 of the Suits Valuation Act with reference to pecuniary
        jurisdiction. The policy underlying Sections 21 and 99 CPC E
        and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act is the same, namely,
        that when a case had bee/! tried by a court on the merits and
        judgment rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely
        on technical grounds, unless it had resulted in failure of
        justice, and the policy of the legislature has been to treat F
        objections to jurisdiction both territorial and pecuniary as
        technical and not open to consideration by an appellate court,
        unless there has been a prejudice on the merits. The contention
        of the appellants, therefore, that the decree and judgment of
        the District Court, Monghyr, should be treated as a nullity
        cannot be sustained under Section 11 of the Suits Valuation G
        Act.'"

        12. We are thus of the view that in the face of judgment of this
  Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra), the High Court was not justified in
  'AIR I 954 SC 340
                                                                                  H
606             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] I S.C.R.


A     setting aside the award of the Tribunal in absence of any failure ofjustice
      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.
             13. Reliance placed on decisions of this Court in GS. Grewal
B     and Jagmittar Sain Bhagat is misplaced. In GS. Grewal, the subject
      matter of dispute was not covered by the definition of"service matters"
      under Section 3(o) oftheArmed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and on that
      ground, it was held that the Armed Forces Tribunal had no jurisdiction in
      the matter. Thus, it was a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction over the
      subject matter. Similarly in JagmittarSain Bhagat, the claimant before
 c    the Consumer Protection Forum was found not be a "consumer" under
      Section 2( I)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and on that ground
      the orderofthe consumer forum was held to be without jurisdiction. The
      said cases did not deal with the issue of territorial jurisdiction.
              14. The provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent
D     provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. The provision
      for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object
      of facilitati'ng remedies for the victims of accidents. Hyper technical
      approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated. There is no bar to
      a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company,
 E    which is the main contesting parties in such cases, has its business. In
      such cases, there is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure of
      justice. Moreover, in view of categorical decision ofthis Court in Mantoo
      Sarkar (supra) .. contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be
      sustained. The High Court failed to notice the provision of Section 21
      CPC.
 F
           15. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned
      judgment of the High Court and restore the award of the Tribunal.
      Devika Gujral                                                 Appeal allowed.


 G