NCLAT: Can’t Set Aside Liquidation Order u/s 33 IBC When 3rd Party has Taken Possession of Property  ||  NCLAT: Unless Amendment Application Filed, Authority Can’t Suo Motu Amend Date of Default  ||  Delhi HC Directs Removal of 'Kindpan' Trademark in Petition Filed by ‘Mankind’  ||  J&K HC: Limitation for Challenging Award Starts after Signed Copy is Received by Party  ||  Delhi HC: ‘High Speed’ Not Sufficient to Conclude Driver Acted in Rash and Negligent Manner  ||  Allahabad HC: Huge Difference between Executing a Particular Document and Being a Witness  ||  Kerala HC: Can’t Consider Co-Opted Members of Bar Council as Separate Class from Elected Members  ||  J&K HC: Govt. Failing to Communicate Rejection of Detenue’s Representation in Time Vitiates Order  ||  SC: Electricity Act Empowers State Commissions to Regulate Open Access Within their Respective States  ||  SC: Limitation Begins from Date of Registration of Sale Deed that Constitutes Constructive Notice    

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