JOHNSON Vs. M RAHEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the order dismissing the claim petition for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, stating that the Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

(2.) It is the case of the appellant/claimant that on 19.07.2001, the appellant along with his colleagues went to tour to Kodaikanal in a Mahindra Van bearing registration No.TN-74-C-3132 and on 20.07.2001 about 00.30 hours at Thalapathi Samudram in front of Mourmadam, he stopped the vehicle for purchasing goods from a shop. After purchase, while the appellant was returning to his Van on the left side of the road, a goods carrier bearing registration No.KL-01/J-8289 belonging to the 1st respondent, driven by him in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing any horn, dashed against him, as a result, the appellant sustained severe injuries on his head. He filed MCOP.No.34 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Judge), Padmanabhapuram, claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- . The 2nd respondent insurance company filed counter resisting the claim. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. As against the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is a resident of Kanyakumari District and as per Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant can file the present claim petition where he resides or carries on business and therefore, the filing of the present claim petition at Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District, is maintainable. Further, the Tribunal has failed to consider that the plea of territorial jurisdiction was never raised as a preliminary issue by the insurance company and after allowing for letting in evidences, only at the verge of judgment, it has been raised and therefore, the dismissal of the claim petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following decisions:-