SC: Public Premises Act Prevails over State Rent Laws For Evicting Unauthorised Occupants  ||  SC: Doctors Were Unwavering Heroes in COVID-19, and Their Sacrifice Remains Indelible  ||  SC Sets Up Secondary Medical Board to Assess Passive Euthanasia Plea of Man in Vegetative State  ||  NCLAT: Amounts Listed As ‘Other Advances’ in Company’s Balance Sheet aren’t Financial Debt under IBC  ||  NCLT Ahmedabad: Objections to Coc Cannot Bar RP From Challenging Preferential Transactions  ||  J&K&L HC: Courts Should Exercise Caution When Granting Interim Relief in Public Infrastructure Cases  ||  Bombay HC: SARFAESI Sale Invalid if Sale Certificate is Not Issued Prior to IBC Moratorium  ||  Supreme Court: Police May Freeze Bank Accounts under S.102 CrPC in Prevention of Corruption Cases  ||  SC: Arbitrator’s Mandate Ends on Time Expiry; Substituted Arbitrator Must Continue After Extension  ||  SC: Woman May Move Her Department’s ICC For Harassment by Employee of Another Workplace    

Riki & Ors. Vs. Vikas Babu & Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (13 Apr 2023)

Once it was undisputed that, the insurer is having an office at Delhi, the Tribunal ought to have entertained the claim

MANU/DE/2444/2023

Motor Vehicles

The present petition under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 preferred by the wife and the two minor sons of the deceased Sh. Krishna Kumar seeks to assail the order passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the Petitioners on the ground that, since the fateful accident leading to the death of Krishna Kumar had taken place at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, the Tribunal did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.

The learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the Appellant merely because the accident took place in Ghaziabad, U.P. Once it was undisputed that the insurer is having an office at Delhi, the Tribunal ought to have entertained the petitioners' claim instead of rejecting the same on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

The approach of the learned Tribunal in dealing with the claim petition was faulty. The learned Tribunal appears to have overlooked the fact that the office of the Respondent insurer was within it's jurisdiction and therefore, there was no reason to reject the petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for adjudication of the claim petition on merits. The petition is disposed of.

Tags : ADJUDICATION   DISPUTES   JURISDICTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved