SONA DEVI Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is at the instance of a claimant, who along with several other persons through independent petitions approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, for claiming compensation for death of the 1st claimant's husband in a motor accident. The deceased was one of 54 pilgrims, who had hired tour operator's services from Karnal to go to several places on worship in Northern India, including Haridwar, Ayodhya, Jagan Nath Puri and also to Nepal and reach the starting point in India through bus having registration No. UP-10B-0939. The tour was said to have been operated by a tour operator in India and the bus in the course of its transit at Kathmandu fell into Trishuli Nadi. All the persons travelling in the bus drowned in the river and had died.

(2.) On a preliminary objection taken by the insurance company that the petition was not maintainable, for the accident had taken in a country to which the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are not applicable, the Tribunal rejected the claim petition without going to the merits of the case and found that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act were applicable only to the territory of India excluding Jammu and Kashmir and therefore, there was no valid cause of action for pursuit before the Tribunal for an accident that had taken place in Nepal. The point urged in appeal by the claimants is that Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes possible the place of residence of the claimant as constituting a jurisdiction for the Tribunal to entertain the claim and therefore, the case filed at Court of Ambala where they were residing had jurisdiction. The Tribunal rejected the petition on the ground that the Tribunal which is constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act can hear and dispose of case only in respect of accidents that take place within the limits of India to which the provisions of the Act is extended. The Tribunal observed that any accident, if it takes place in a foreign country, can leave no cause of action to enforce before the Tribunal.

(3.) The issue in this case really is one of application of the Rules of Conflict of Laws or Private International Law, for the claim is at the instance of legal representatives of a deceased, who was an Indian citizen, who had entered into a contract with the contractor in India, who had availed the services of a public service vehicle in India and who was supposed to return to a place in India where a foreign country was merely a place of transit. The only foreign element involved in the case is that the accident had taken place in a foreign country; otherwise, all the causes of action relating to a contract to carry a passenger, the person who caused the accident, the owner of the vehicle who was involved in the accident are all Indians.