Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10  OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.27243 OF 2015)

MALATI SARDAR                                     …PETITIONER

VERSUS

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED  & ORS.                                         ...RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T  

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

1. 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 territorial  

jurisdiction.

2. On 7th May, 2008, the deceased Diganta Sardar, aged  

26 years, a school teacher, unmarried son of the appellant  

was  hit  by  Bus  No.WB/15-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 colleague,  

Uttam  Samui  as  a  pillion  rider.   The  appellant  filed  an  

application  under  Section  166  of  the  Motor  Vehicles  Act,

Page 2

SLP (C) No.27243 of 2015

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 47  

years, and taking into account the income 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 th  

February, 2012.

4. The respondent company preferred an appeal before  

the  High  Court  on  the  only  ground  of  lack  of  territorial  

jurisdiction of the Tribunal.  The objection of the respondent  

was that the accident took place at Hoogly and the claimant  

resided  at  Hoogly.   Office  of  the  respondent  being  at  

Kolkata did not attract jurisdiction of the Kolkata Tribunal.  

Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Union  

of India vs. G.S. Grewal  1   and Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs.  

Director,  Health  Services,  Haryana  2      apart  from  the  

High Court judgments.  The appellant supported the award  

by placing reliance on judgment of this  Court in  Mantoo  

1 (2014) 7 SCC 303 2 (2013) 10 SCC 136

Page 2 of  9

Page 3

SLP (C) No.27243 of 2015

Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited  3      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 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.    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  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. Kustiswar Pramanik (supra) [2010(1) T.A.C.   405  (Cal),  in  Nirmala  Devi  Agarwal  (supra)  [2013  (3)  CLJ  (Cal)]  and  in  the  unreported   judgment delivered on 18th July, 2012 in FMA  724 of 2008 with C.O.T. 22 of 2008 (The New  Indian  Assurance  Col.  Ltd.  vs.  Silpi  Dutta  &  Ors.)  and  we  respectfully  disagree  with  the  judgment  in  FMA  1454  of  2013  (National   Insurance  Company  Ltd.  vs.  Alpana  Jana  &  Ors.)”.

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  3 (2009) 2 SCC 244

Page 3 of  9

Page 4

SLP (C) No.27243 of 2015

Tribunal could not exercise jurisdiction on the ground that  

registered office of the insurance 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 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 if there was failure of justice.  

The decisions of this Court in  G.S. Grewal and Jagmittar  

Sain  Bhagat  have  no  application  to  the  fact  situation   

at hand.

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 166(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).  

9. The  question  for  consideration  thus  is  whether  the  

Tribunal at Kolkata had the jurisdiction to decide the claim  

application under Section 166 of the Act when the accident  

took place outside Kolkata jurisdiction and the claimant also  

Page 4 of  9

Page 5

SLP (C) No.27243 of 2015

resided  outside  Kolkata  jurisdiction,  but  the  respondent  

being  a  juristic  person  carried  on  business  at  Kolkata.  

Further question is whether in absence of failure of justice,  

the High Court could set aside the award of the Tribunal on  

the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

10. 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 :  

“166. Application for compensation.— * * *

(2)  Every  application  under  sub-section  (1)   shall  be made, at the option of the claimant,   either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction   over the area in which the accident occurred,   or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits   of  whose  jurisdiction  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 140 is made in such application,   the  application  shall  contain  a  separate  statement  to  that  effect  immediately  before   the signature of the applicant.”

11. In  Mantoo Sarkar (supra),  the insurance company  

had a branch at Nainital.  Accident took place outside the  

jurisdiction of  Nainital  Tribunal.  The claimant remained in  

the  hospital  at  Bareilly  and  thereafter  shifted  to  Pilibhit  

Page 5 of  9

Page 6

SLP (C) No.27243 of 2015

where he was living for a long time.  However, at the time of  

filing of the claim petition he was 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  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 of lack of territorial jurisdiction could not  

be entertained in absence of any prejudice.  Distinction was  

required to be drawn between a jurisdiction with regard 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. Chaman  Paswan  4      to  the  following  

effect :

“With  reference  to  objections  relating  to   territorial  jurisdiction,  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  

4 AIR 1954 SC 340

Page 6 of  9

Page 7

SLP (C) No.27243 of 2015

of  the  Suits  Valuation  Act  with  reference  to  pecuniary  jurisdiction.  The  policy  underlying   Sections 21 and 99 CPC and Section 11 of the  Suits Valuation Act is the same, namely, that   when a case had been 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  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 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 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.

13. Reliance  placed  on  decisions  of  this  Court  in  G.S.  

Grewal and Jagmittar Sain Bhagat is misplaced.  In G.S.  

Grewal, the subject matter of dispute was not covered by  

the definition of “service matters” under Section 3(o) of the  

Armed 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  

Page 7 of  9

Page 8

SLP (C) No.27243 of 2015

jurisdiction over the subject matter.  Similarly in Jagmittar  

Sain Bhagat, the claimant before the Consumer Protection  

Forum was found not be a “consumer” under Section 2(1)

(d)  of  the  Consumer  Protection  Act,  1986  and  on  that  

ground the order of  the 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  provision  for  the  victims  of  accidents  of  

negligent  driving.   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.  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 prejudice to any party.  There is no failure  

of justice.  Moreover, in view of categorical decision of this  

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.

Page 8 of  9

Page 9

SLP (C) No.27243 of 2015

15. Accordingly,  we  allow  this  appeal,  set  aside  the  

impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court  and  restore  the  

award of the Tribunal.

…………..……..…………………………….J.                                                                  [ ANIL R. DAVE ]

…………..….………………………………..J.          [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ]

NEW DELHI JANUARY 5, 2016  

Page 9 of  9