Kerala HC Refuses to Stay Circular Imposing Stricter Conditions for Driving Tests  ||  Delhi HC Directs Police Investigation Against Use of Oxytocin in Dairy Colonies  ||  All. HC Rejects PIL Seeking Release of Justice Rohini Commission Report on OBC Sub-Categorisation  ||  Orissa HC: Trespassers Must Accept Responsibility for Risk in Crossing Railway Tracks  ||  Cash-For-Jobs Scam: Calcutta High Court Denies Bail to Former WB Education Minister  ||  MP High Court: Unnatural Sex With Wife Not Rape as Absence of Woman's Consent Immaterial  ||  SC: Court Can Exempt Accused from Personal Appearance Before Grant of Bail  ||  2024 Elections: Supreme Court Directs Minimum 1/3rd Women's Reservation in Bar Association Posts  ||  Ori. HC: ‘Online RTI Portal’ Launched by Orissa High Court  ||  Del HC: In Delhi, Giving Monthly Pension of Rs.3000 to Building & Construction Workers is Very Small    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved