Case: Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

3. Appellant had been travelling as a passenger in a bus, bearing registration No.MP-04-7915, belonging to Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation. It met with an accident in the town of Faridpur in the District of Uttar Pradesh having collided with truck bearing No.HR-38-E-5554. Appellant suffered grievous injuries. A First Information Report was lodged against the driver of the said truck under Sections 279, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.Indisputably the said truck belonged to respondent No.2 and was registered at Faridabad. It was insured with respondent No.1-company. Appellant was working as a skilled migrant seasonal agricultural labourer. He had been earning his livelihood at the relevant time by performing his job as a labourer in the work of extracting sand gravel from a river named `Hola River near Beri Pada, Lalkuan, Distt. Nainital, Uttaranchal. He is said to have been living for a long time at Pilibhit in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Indisputably, after he remained in the district Hospital at Bareilly as an indoor patient upto 28th July, 2003, he was shifted to Prabhakar Hospital in Pilibhit. He underwent several operations.4. Appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nainital (for short `the Tribunal) claiming a sum of Rs.23,90,000/- (Rupees twenty three lakh ninety thousand only) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of actual payment.5. Respondent No.1 has a branch office at Nainital.The conductor of the bus and the driver of the truck examined themselves before the Tribunal as witnesses. No oral evidence was, however, adduced on behalf of the first respondent. One of the questions which, only the first respondent raised and no other, was lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the Tribunal.The learned Tribunal inter alia on the premise that the jurisdiction conferred on it, having regard to sub-section (2) of Section 166 of the Act is wide and the insurance company having a branch office at Nainital, it had territorial jurisdiction to determine the claim petition. It made an Award of Rs.2,40,000/ (Rupees two lakh forty thousand only) in favour of the claimant.6. The High Court, however, on an appeal preferred thereagaisnt by the first respondent, opinedis a well settled position of law that the claim petition can only be entertained and filed before a court having the territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. The claimant cannot take the matter to different State on the pretext that his case would be disposed of expeditiously in that State or District without having the territorial jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the Tribunal, Nainital had got no territorial jurisdiction to dispose of the matter, the claimants may be given liberty to file a fresh claim petition before the competentthe basis of the said finding it was held that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nainital had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said claim petition.

Reasoning:
In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Even in Brij Mohan this Court held: (SCC p. 64, paras 13- 14)"13. However, Respondent 1 is a poor labourer. He had suffered grievous injuries. He had become disabled to a great extent. The amount of compensation awarded in his favour appears to be on a lower side. In the aforementioned situation, although we reject the other contentions of Ms Indu Malhotra, we are inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to direct that the award may be satisfied by the appellant but it would be entitled to realise the same from the owner of the tractor and the trolley wherefor it would not be necessary for it to initiate any separate proceedings for recovery of the amount as provided for under the Motor Vehiclesis well settled that in a situation of this nature this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Article 136 thereof can issue suit directions for doing complete justice to thehowever, has been placed on a decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal, [ (2002) 8 SCC 158  ], to contend that this Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Whether the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution shall be exercised or not would depend upon the fact of the each matter. Law in this case does not come in the way of exercise of such jurisdiction.