RAVEENDRAN Vs. RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANT is the appellant. He staked a claim for compensation for injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 21/03/2004. He staked the claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara. The accident evidently occurred on the other side of the Kerala - Tamil Nadu border i.e., within the revenue District of Kanya Kumari. The appellant staked a claim before the Claims Tribunal at Neyyattinkara. He initially showed his address as residing within the Kanya Kumari District. Subsequently he got the petition amended and incorporated a description that he is at present residing at Elluvila in Thiruvananthapuram District within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Neyyattinkara. Even when he filed the claim petition, he had described the second respondent - driver to be a person residing within the jurisdiction of Trivandrum revenue district.

(2.) THE claim petition was filed as early as in 2004. It is not disputed before us that the applicant had staked a claim for compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. That petition was allowed. THE amount was not paid and the appellant/applicant was compelled to take out execution proceedings. Subsequently, the said amount was deposited and released to the appellant/applicant. Long later in 2010, the matter came up for trial. Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the appellant/claimant. Ext.B1 policy of insurance (there is no dispute about the coverage) was produced by the insurance company. Ext.X1 disability certificate issued by the Medical College Hospital, Trivandrum, was also produced. THE Tribunal took up the matter for consideration. As issue No.1, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the territorial jurisdiction. THE Tribunal found that the appellant/applicant, who had initially described himself to be having an address at Kanya Kumari, had not produced anything to show that he is actually residing within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Though the appellant had described the 2nd respondent to be a resident of Trivandrum district within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Neyyattinkara, the learned Tribunal found that no satisfactory evidence was produced in support of that assertion. THEre is no case that the respondent could not be served at that address. In short, the Tribunal found that the Tribunal lacks territorial jurisdiction. THE Tribunal taking note of the fact that there is no period of limitation prescribed, dismissed the petition with the observation that the appellant can file a fresh petition before the Tribunal in the State of Tamil Nadu. An amount of Rs.1,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensatory costs. THE amount deposited and released to the appellant under Sec.140 of the M.V. Act was ordered to be re-deposited before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned award.

(3.) ACCORDING to us, it was unnecessary for the Tribunal to distrust the claimant - no oblique motive having been shown against him in the proceedings by any one. There is no contention even that the claimant is actuated by any unfair or dubious motives. The fact that he had asserted that he had shifted his residence prior to the lodging of the claim should also have been accepted by the Tribunal in the absence of satisfactory reasons to take a different view. The 2nd respondent, as already indicated was even initially shown to be residing within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.