IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 MACA.No. 338 of 2011(G) ------------------------------- OPMV.1075/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPLICANT ----------------------- RAVEENDRAN,S/O.RAMAN,PILLAYARCOIL STREET MANAVALAKURICHI.P.O,KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT,NOW RESIDING AT PLANKALA PUTHEN VEEDU,ELLUVILA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.L.MOHANAN SMT.LIGEY ANTONY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. RAJAN,S/O.RAJAYYAPN,VADALIKATTUVILAI, SASTHANKARI,COLECHEL.P.O,KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. 2. IBRAHIM,S/O.SEYAD ALI,ELAPPAVILAI, COLACHAL.P.O,KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT,ZAINA MANZIL, VAZHIMUKKU,BALARAMAPURAM.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 338 of 2011-G ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. Claimant is the appellant. He staked a claim for compensation for injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 21/03/2004. He staked the claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara. The accident evidently occurred on the other side of the Kerala - Tamil Nadu border i.e., within the revenue District of Kanya Kumari. The appellant staked a claim before the Claims Tribunal at Neyyattinkara. He initially showed his address as residing within the Kanya Kumari District. Subsequently he got the petition amended and incorporated a description that he is at present residing at Elluvila in Thiruvananthapuram District within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Neyyattinkara. Even when he filed the claim petition, he had described the second respondent - driver to be a person residing within the jurisdiction of Trivandrum revenue district. 2. The claim petition was filed as early as in 2004. It is not M.A.C.A. No. 338 of 2011 -: 2 :- disputed before us that the applicant had staked a claim for compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. That petition was allowed. The amount was not paid and the appellant/applicant was compelled to take out execution proceedings. Subsequently, the said amount was deposited and released to the appellant/applicant. Long later in 2010, the matter came up for trial. Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. Ext.B1 policy of insurance (there is no dispute about the coverage) was produced by the insurance company. Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum, was also produced. The Tribunal took up the matter for consideration. As issue No.1, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that the appellant/applicant, who had initially described himself to be having an address at Kanya Kumari, had not produced anything to show that he is actually residing within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Though the appellant had described the 2nd respondent to be a resident of Trivandrum district within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Neyyattinkara, the learned Tribunal found that no satisfactory evidence was produced in support of that assertion. There is no case that the M.A.C.A. No. 338 of 2011 -: 3 :- respondent could not be served at that address. In short, the Tribunal found that the Tribunal lacks territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal taking note of the fact that there is no period of limitation prescribed, dismissed the petition with the observation that the appellant can file a fresh petition before the Tribunal in the State of Tamil Nadu. An amount of Rs.1,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensatory costs. The amount deposited and released to the appellant under Sec.140 of the M.V. Act was ordered to be re-deposited before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned award. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant and the respondent/insurance company. There is no appearance for others. Sec.166(2) of the M.V. Act deals with the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunals. We extract Sec.166 (2) of the M.V. Act below: “166. Application for compensation.-- x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x (2) Every application under sub- section (1) shall be made, at the option of M.A.C.A. No. 338 of 2011 -: 4 :- 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.” 4. A reading of Sec.166(2) of the M.V. Act shows that the law gives an option to the claimant to stake a claim before any of the Tribunals mentioned thereunder. The option is that of the claimant. The Tribunals are constituted to do rough and ready justice. The primary mandate to them is to ensure that just and reasonable compensation is made available to the claimants. The compassion of the legislature in favour of the victims is reflected right through in the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act. M.A.C.A. No. 338 of 2011 -: 5 :- The legislature compassionately has conceded to the claimant the option to file a petition before any of the Tribunals mentioned in Sec.166(2) of the M.V. Act. We must alertly note that the respondents are not put to any suffering because the 2nd respondent is described to be a resident within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The insurer - the insurance company, admittedly has an office at Trivandrum and has the infrastructure to contest the proceedings before the Tribunal at Neyyattinkara. 5. According to us, it was unnecessary for the Tribunal to distrust the claimant - no oblique motive having been shown against him in the proceedings by any one. There is no contention even that the claimant is actuated by any unfair or dubious motives. The fact that he had asserted that he had shifted his residence prior to the lodging of the claim should also have been accepted by the Tribunal in the absence of satisfactory reasons to take a different view. The 2nd respondent, as already indicated was even initially shown to be residing within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 6. We do further note that Trivandrum is a border district and people do shift their residence if necessary. We must M.A.C.A. No. 338 of 2011 -: 6 :- particularly note that the appellant had got the disability certificate issued from the Medical College at Trivandrum and that again is one indication that he is residing within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 7. At any rate, we are unable to find any valid reasons to support the findings of the Tribunal that it lacks the territorial jurisdiction. More over, we note that the respondents, while suffering an order under Sec.140 of the M.V. Act, in execution proceedings initiated or before deposit and release of the amount to the appellant/claimant had not pressed this contention regarding lack of territorial jurisdiction. The matter has been pending before the Tribunal for six long years also, we do note. Any Tribunal which has imbibed the spirit of compassion which underlies the provisions of the M.V. Act relating to payment of compensation should not have, we feel, technically relied on the doctrine of territorial jurisdiction to non-suit the claimant. The averments made by the claimant do not deserve to be approached with any amount of suspicion in the absence of reasons to take such an attitude. 8. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed. M.A.C.A. No. 338 of 2011 -: 7 :- (b) The impugned order is set aside. (c) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, is directed to dispose of O.P.(MV) No.1075/04 afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible - at any rate, within a period of 45 days of 1/9/2011 on which date both parties shall appear before the Tribunal. 9. Compliance shall be reported to this Court. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge