JUDGMENTS RELATED TO JURISDICTION UNDER MV ACT

 

JUDGMENTS RELATED TO JURISDICTION UNDER MV ACT

 

1Jurisdiction – claimant residing in District H, insurance

company is also having office in District C, whether

the Tribunal at District C has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition; held : yes

2009 ACJ 564 (SC)

2 Accident occurred in Nepal while deceased was on

Pilgrimage Journey started from India Opponents are Indian citizens and having offices in India Whether claim petition in India is maintainable. Held : Yes

2012 ACJ 1452 (P&H)

IC disputed its liability on the ground that accident occurred in Nepal and, therefore, IC is not liable to pay – Whether sustainable? Held – No. Even as per Section 146 and 147 of the M v Act IP is attached to the vehicle and not to geographical area of operation.

2019 ACJ 381 (P&H)

3 Jurisdiction of permanent Lok Adalat– guideline.

2012 ACJ 1608.

3 A Award passed by Tribunal – Execution petition for

enforcement of said award – In Lok Adalat, claimants agreed to accept less amount than the awarded amount – claimant preferred appeal against award of the tribunal – Held that appeal against

the ward of the tribunal is maintainable but claimants are held entitled for amount agreed in the Lok Adalat.

2018 ACJ 1454 (Bom)

4 In accident vehicle got damaged claim petition

filed against one of the IC claim petition, partly allowed claimant

preferred another application against another IC whether

maintainable? Held : No.

2012 AAC 2944 (Chh)SC

judgments followed.

5 Jurisdiction Damage to property of owner whether maintainable? Held No tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain only those applications wherein damage is caused to property of the third party.

2005 ACJ (SC) 1, Dhanraj v/s N.I.A. Com is relied upon.

2012 ACJ 2737.

6 Jurisdiction after the death of her husband, deceased was staying with her  brother whether claim petition can be preferred at the place where she is staying with her brother? Held : Yes.

2012 ACJ 2811

7 U/s 166(2) – jurisdiction of Tribunal Claimant migrant labourer Appeal by insurer Award amount not disputed Setting aside of award on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction Would only

result in retrial before appropriate Tribunal S.

C. would exercise powers under Art.142 to do complete justice in such a case.

AIR 2009 SC 1022Mantoo

Sarkar v/s O.I. Com.

Ltd., 2015 ACJ 2512 (MP), 2017 ACJ 299 (Cal),

2017 ACJ 605 (P&H) 2016

ACJ 546 (SC)Malati

Sardar vs. N.I.Com followed, 2017 ACJ 672

(Mad), 2017 ACJ 2156 (Cal), 2017 ACJ 2355

(Chh), 2019 ACJ 851 (Del)

7A Territorial Jurisdiction – even if accident occurred out the territorial jurisdiction of tribunal and claimant and driver/owner staying out side the territorial jurisdiction of tribunal, claim petition is maintainable, if IC is carrying business with the territorial jurisdiction of tribunal.

2016 (3) SCC 43 – Malati Sardar v/s N I Com.

7BTerritorial Jurisdiction – when claim petition was filed before the District A it had the jurisdiction but later on the place from claimants are hailing from also got claims Tribunal whether

under such circumstances the claim petition preferred before the District A is maintainable? Held – Yes.

2022 ACJ 930 (Gau)

8 Jurisdiction of Claims Tribunal Claim for loss of business income due to non use of vehicle Falls under head damage to property Claims Tribunal would have jurisdiction to entertain and decide such claim.

AIR 2007 Guj 39 but also see 2013 ACJ 1732

(P&H).

9 Jurisdiction where a claim petition is maintainable Good

discussion.

2013 ACJ 1787

10 Cause of action Jurisdiction Accident occurred in Nepal Bus

was registered in India Whether a claim    petition is maintainable in India? Held:No.

2013ACJ 1807 (Bih).

11 Estoppel Consumer court held that driver was holding valid licence and IC is directed to pay amount by Consumer court Whether IC can take same defence before the MAC Tribunal. Held;No.

IC is estopped from raising such stand.

24 ACJ (Kar) 2736.

12 U/s 166(3) as it stood prior to its deletion accident

occurred prior to the said deletion claim petition filed after deletion and since years after the accident whether claim petition is maintainable? Held ; Yes.

13 Limitation – claim petition filed in 2005, whereas

accident occurred in the year 1990 whether claim

petition is time barred? Held ; no

2011 ACJ 1585 (Jark),

An application for condonation of delay was preferred as claim petition under the unamended act was time barred – same came to be dismissed – claimants preferred another claim petition post

amendment – whether second claim petition can be said to be time barred and hit by principle of res judicata? HeldNo.

2018 ACJ 1739 (All) 14

LimitationU/s 166(3) as it stood prior to its deletion accident

occurred prior to the said deletion claim petition filed after deletion and since years after the accident whether claim

petition is maintainable? Held;Yes.

2015 ACJ 221 (Chh), 2017 ACJ 1930 (Ker)

14ALimitation for filing claim petition Section 166(3) has been deleted w.e.f. 14111994 but that does not mean that claim petition can be entertained after unexplained delay of 28 years.

AIR 2017 SC 1612 (FB) = 2017 ACJ 1255 (SC) – M/s

Purohit & Com. V/s Khatoonbee. 2022 ACJ 1564 (Del)

15 Tribunal dismissed claim petition on the groundthat accident is not proved whether Tribunal erred? Held ; yes Tribunal

is supposed to conduct ‘inquiry’ not ‘trial’ in claim petition and summery procedure has to be evolved Tribunal could have

invoked power envisaged u/s 165 of Evidence Act

2011 ACJ 1475 (DEL)

16Claim petition for own damage – whether maintainable before the MACT?Held ; No.

2018 ACJ 1663 (Bom)

16AOwn damage – claimant is only entitled to actual

loss and not consequential loss like mental agony

or hiring of another car etc.

2019 ACJ 927 (Chh)