Madras HC: Police Superintendent not Liable For IO’s Delay In Filing Chargesheet or Closure Report  ||  Supreme Court: Provident Fund Dues Have Priority over a Bank’s Claim under the SARFAESI Act  ||  SC Holds Landowners Who Accept Compensation Settlements Cannot Later Seek Statutory Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Endless Investigations and Long Delays in Chargesheets Can Justify Quashing  ||  Delhi HC: Arbitrator Controls Evidence and Appellate Courts Cannot Reassess Facts  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: ED Can Search Anyone Holding Crime Proceeds, not Just Those Named in Complaint  ||  Delhi HC: Economic Offender Cannot Seek Travel Abroad For Medical Treatment When Available In India  ||  SC: Governors and President Have No Fixed Timeline To Assent To Bills; “Deemed Assent” is Invalid  ||  SC: Assigning a Decree For Specific Performance of a Sale Agreement Does Not Require Registration    

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