RAVENDRA SINGH Vs. SONU RAJAK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an interlocutory order dated 16.11.2012 passed by the MACT Katni rejecting an application filed by the petitioner.

(2.) I am of the considered view that the Court below has committed grave error. Merely because the Insurance Company has branch office in Katni that would not amount that any Court where a branch office of Insurance Company is situated would have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the jurisdiction is conferred based on option of the claimant subject to condition that claimant should be either residing within the jurisdiction of Claims Tribunal where proceedings are initiated or the defendant should be residing or carries on business. Merely because United India Insurance Company has its branch office in Katni also it cannot provide jurisdiction under provision of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) Similar question was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sonic Surgical v. National Insurance Company, 2010 1 SCC 135 and after taking note of the question of jurisdiction for complaint to be filed under the Consumer Protection Act in a place where branch office of Insurance Company is situated, the learned Supreme Court held that merely because branch office of the Insurance Company is situated in various places all over the country, the cause of action would not arise in every place where the branch office of Insurance Company is situated. It has been indicated that for finding out cause of action in the matter and question with regard to availability of jurisdiction territorial in nature an ancillary question with regard to the place of business of the Insurance Company and the condition for insuring the vehicle is liable to be considered. Merely because branch office is situated in a place, the cause of action would not arise.