Pankajakshan N S v. Sandeep Suresh; Vimal Venugopal; United India Insurance Company Ltd.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1941** ## **OP (MAC).No.61 of 2019** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OPMV 436/2017 of ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR DATED 04/05/2019** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER :** **PANKAJAKSHAN N S AGED 59 YEARS S/O.SANKARAN, DEVADARSH HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM P.O., EAST MORAKKALA, KUNNATHUNAD.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :** **1 SANDEEP SURESH S/O.SURESH.N.C., NEDUMKULANGARA HOUSE, KUSUMAGIRI P.O., KAKKANAD, ATHANI-682 030. 2 VIMAL VENUGOPAL, S/O.VENUGOPAL, NEDUMKULANGARA HOUSE, KUSUMAGIRI P.O., KAKKANAD, ATHANI-682 030. 3 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, N.PARAVUR-683 513.** ## **SRI P.K.MANOJ KUMAR- STANDING COUNSEL** **THIS OP (MAC) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **OP (MAC).No.61 of 2019** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is the claimant in O.P(MV)No.436 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, which is a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident, which occurred on 23.10.2017, involving a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7/CB-2699, owned by the 1[st] respondent, ridden by the 2[nd] respondent and insured with the 3[rd] respondent. At the place of accident, i.e., near IMG Junction on Pallikkara-Kakkanad road, the said motorcycle hit on another motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7/CB-2234 ridden by the petitioner, who sustained injuries. In Ext.P1 claim petition, the petitioner claimed a total compensation of Rs.1 Crore. The documents marked as Exts.P2 and P3 are discharge summaries, showing the nature of injuries and inpatient treatment undergone by the petitioner. **OP (MAC).No.61 of 2019** **3** 2. In O.P(MV)No.436 of 2017, the 3[rd] respondent insurer filed written statement, a copy of which is placed on record as Ext.P4, wherein it has been contended that the Tribunal at North Paravur is having no jurisdiction to try Ext.P1 claim petition since the policy of insurance of the offending motorcycle was issued from the Divisional Office No.3, Mavelipuram, Kakkanad and the claimant is also not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of that Tribunal. 3. On 28.01.2019, the 3[rd] respondent filed Ext.P5 interlocutory application before the Tribunal to decide question of maintainability as a preliminary issue. The petitioner filed Ext.P6 objections to that application. The Tribunal in Ext.P7 order dated 04.05.2019 found that it has no jurisdiction to try O.P(MV)No.436 of 2017. Hence, the claim petition was returned to the petitioner for presentation before proper Tribunal having jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P7 order, the petitioner is before this Court in this original **OP (MAC).No.61 of 2019** **4** petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent insurer. 5. The issue that arises for consideration in this original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P7 order dated 04.05.2019 of the Tribunal. 6. The finding of the Tribunal in Ext.P7 order is that it has no jurisdiction to entertain O.P(MV)No.436 of 2017. Paragraphs 6 to 10 and also the last paragraph of that order read thus; _“6. Issue:- This issue is heard as a preliminary issue. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with application for compensation. As per Section 166(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_ **OP (MAC).No.61 of 2019** **5** _the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed._ _7. In this case the accident occurred at IMG junction situated at Pallikkara-Kakkanad road which is within the jurisdiction of Ernakulam City traffic Police Station. The petitioner is residing at Kumarapuram of Kunnathunad. The first and second respondents are residing at Kakkanad. So the petitioner as well as the first and second respondents are not residing within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. But the petition is filed before this Tribunal alleging that third respondent, who issued the insurance policy is situated within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and hence this Tribunal is having jurisdiction._ _8. Third respondent filed written statement as well as the above petition alleging that even though the policy was issued by United India Insurance Company Ltd., same was issued from the branch office of Kakkanad. As the policy was issued from Kakkanad, this Tribunal is not having jurisdiction. So this Tribunal is not empowered as per Section 166(2) to try and dispose the claim petition._ _9. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that this Tribunal is having jurisdiction to try the petition and to substantiate the said contention he relied_ _**Sugunan v. Riyas [2015 (1) KLT 788]** . The fact discussed in the above ruling is not applicable in this case because in the said case_ **OP (MAC).No.61 of 2019** **6** _the Tribunal returned the petition to the petitioner on the ground that the accident occurred not within the jurisdiction of that Tribunal and the respondents are also not residing within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. But the Lordship Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran held that the insurance company who issued the policy is situated within the jurisdiction of that Tribunal and hence on that ground the Lordship held that the Tribunal is having jurisdiction._ _10. The argument advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that as per the said ruling presence of the branch office of the company within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is sufficient to confer jurisdiction based on the above dictum. The argument advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner is not sustainable as it is seen from the ruling that the 4[th] respondent in that case was situated within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Here the policy was issued from Kakkanad office, which is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and hence the argument advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner is not legally sustainable. So this Tribunal is accepting the contention of the third respondent that this Tribunal is not having jurisdiction to try the petition. Point is answered accordingly._ _In the result, the petition is returned to the petitioner for presentation before proper court having jurisdiction.”_ **OP (MAC).No.61 of 2019** **7** 7. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, deals with application for compensation. As per sub-section (2) of Section 166, as substituted by Act 54 of 1994, 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. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner/claimant is residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal at North Paravur. He is residing at Kumarapuram of Kunnathunad Taluk. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and rider of the offending motorcycle, are residents of Kakkanad. The place of accident is near IMG Junction on Pallikkara-Kakknad Road. Though the policy of **OP (MAC).No.61 of 2019** **8** insurance of the offending vehicle is one issued from the Divisional Office of United India Insurance Company Ltd. at Mavelipuram, Kakkanad, the address of the Branch Office of that Insurance Company at North Paravur is shown in the cause title of the claim petition. In the claim petition, the reason stated for filing the same before the Tribunal at North Paravur is that, the insurer is having branch office at North Paravur. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any reason which prompted the petitioner/claimant to file O.P(MV)No.436 of 2017 before the Tribunal at North Paravur, instead of filing it before the Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the place of accident, the place of residence of the petitioner/claimant and that of respondents 1 and 2, the owner and rider of the offending motorcycle and the place of business of the insurer. The policy of insurance of the offending motorcycle was issued from the Divisional Office of United India Insurance **OP (MAC).No.61 of 2019** **9** Company Ltd. at Mavelipuram, Kakkanad, which is also not within the territorial limits of the Tribunal at North Paravur. On a specific query made by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the lawyer, who filed the claim petition, is a member of North Paravur Bar. _9_ . In _**Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329]**_ the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the **OP (MAC).No.61 of 2019** **10** tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 10. In _**Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G.Nair (2016 (1) KHC 1)**_ a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principle of law. 11. In Ext.P7 order, the Tribunal has stated valid reasons in support of the finding that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain O.P(MV)No.436 of 2017. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P7 order **OP (MAC).No.61 of 2019** **11** cannot be said to be palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, warranting an interference of this Court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and taking note of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that no interference is warranted on Ext.P7 order passed by the Tribunal in O.P(MV)No.436 of 2017. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to present the claim petition before proper Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 3[rd] respondent insurer would point out that pleadings are complete in O.P(MV)No.436 of 2017 and that, the disability certificate of the petitioner/claimant is also produced before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ claimant would point out that the Medical **OP (MAC).No.61 of 2019** **12** Board assessed the permanent disability of the claimant as 85%. 14. The petitioner/claimant shall present Ext.P1 claim petition before proper Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction and the said Tribunal shall take necessary steps for expeditious disposal of the case, since the accident is of the year 2017, and the claimant is having permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained in that accident. With the above observation, this original petition is dismissed, declining interference on Ext.P7 order of the Tribunal. **Sd/-** **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE** AV/17/6 **OP (MAC).No.61 of 2019** **13** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION IN OP(MV)NO.436/2017 DATED 28.12.2017 OF THE MACT, N.PARAVUR.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 25.10.2017 OF SUNRISE HOSPITAL, KAKKANAD.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 06.11.2017 OF MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM.** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN OP(MV)NO.436/2017.** **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT DATED 28.01.2019 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P5.** **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.05.2019 IN OP(MV)NO.436/2017.**