ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. K. KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Second Respondent in M.C.O.P.Nos.163, 165 & 167 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Virudhunagar is the Revision Petitioner in the above Revisions.

(2.) THE First Respondent in all the Revision cases filed the above M.C.O.P., claiming the compensation for injuries sustained by them in the Motor Accident that has taken place near new Cheppakkam on Chennai-Trichy GST National Highway on 9.9.2006. In Claim Petitions filed in M.C.O.P.Nos.163 & 165 of 2007, the Claimant namely the First Respondent herein in C.R.P.No.2203 & 2205 of 2009 have given the address at Rajapalayam which is within the jurisdiction of the Virudhunagar District. The Revision Petitioner filed a counter in the above M.C.O.Ps. denying the liability and also have stated that the First Respondents/Claimants are having permanent residence at Chennai and therefore, the Tribunal at Virudhunagar has no jurisdiction to entertain the Claim Petition. The Revision Petitioner also requested the Tribunal to take up the jurisdiction issue as a preliminary issue and the Court found that the Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the Claim Petitions and against the same these Revisions are filed.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. S. Srinivasa Raghavan, learned Counsel for the First Respondent in all the Claimants submitted that though the Revision Petitioner raised a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, they have not taken any action and only after the filing of proof Affidavit of all the Claimants in the Claim petitions and after the documents were marked, they have raised the jurisdiction issue and as per the decision of Hon 'ble Supreme Court judgment reported in Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Co. Ltd. And another, 2009 (1) TN MAC 68 (SC): 2009 (1) MAC 69, unless prejudice is shown to the Revision Petition, the Claim Petition need not be transferred. He further relied upon the judgment reported in Saradha and Others v. Marappan and Others, 2008 (3) MLJ 208, and contended that the Court should not take hyper-technical view and reject the Petition for want of jurisdiction.