Supreme Court: Confession Without Corroboration Cannot Form the Basis of Conviction  ||  SC: Higher Land Acquisition Compensation to Some Owners Cannot Invalidate Awards to Others  ||  SC: Prior Written Demand is Not Mandatory For an Industrial Dispute to Exist or be Referred  ||  SC: Complaint U/S 175(4) BNSS Against a Public Servant Must Meet the Conditions of Section 175(3)  ||  P&H HC: Customary Restrictions Can't Stop Widow From Alienating Non-Ancestral Property  ||  Delhi High Court: SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Directive on Written Arrest Grounds Applies Prospectively  ||  MP HC: MPPSC Cannot Reject Doctors For PG Additional Registration Not Mentioned in the Advertisement  ||  Supreme Court: Registered Sale Deed Carries Strong Presumption of Genuineness  ||  SC: Registry Cannot Intrude Into Judiciary’s Exclusive Domain By Questioning Why a Party is Impleaded  ||  Calcutta HC: Third-Party Suits in a Deity’s Name are Allowed Only When The Sebait Loses Authority    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved