LetsDraft

A claimant has three choices as regards the place where an application for compensation under S. 166(1) could be filed. These are (a) at the place where he resides or (b) the area where the accident occurred or (c) the claimant carries on business. Besides these three options, a fourth option is also available to a claimant inasmuch as a claim application can also be filed within the local limits of the Tribunal where the defendant resides. The words used are 'within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides'. What has been prescribed is the residence of the defendant and not the place where 'the defendant carries on business'. Notably, in S. 166(2) itself the expression used with reference to a claimant is 'or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business', while the expression used with reference to a defendant is 'the defendant resides' for the purposes of conferring territorial jurisdiction. Thus, different expressions have been used qua a claimant and a defendant in S. 166(2) itself in the matter of conferring territorial jurisdiction for the making of a claim application. The legislative intent is, thus, clear. While a claimant can file a claim application also at the place where he carries on business, he may also choose to file it at the place where the defendant resides. The place where the defendant carries on business has been specifically omitted while specifying territorial jurisdiction of a Tribunal. S. 166(2) is distinctly worded from S. 20 of the CPC as regards the criteria for invoking territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Under S. 20 of CPC, the Court within whose jurisdiction the defendant carries on business also has territorial jurisdiction to try a suit, which stipulation is not found in S. 166(2) of the Act of 1988. (Para 8)

As regards use of the expression 'within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides' in S. 166(2) is concerned, it is clear that the same does not intend to refer to an insurer as a defendant. This is in view of the fact that the impleadment of an insurer as a defendant in a claim petition is not mandatory but is optional at the choice of a claimant. The contesting defendant in a claim application would principally be the owner and/or driver of the offending vehicle, amongst others. The claimant has an option to file a claim application even where 'the defendant resides'. In view of use of this expression in S. 166(2), it is indicative of the position that the word 'defendant' used therein does not include an insurer. This aspect is further clear in view of S. 168(1), which requires the Tribunal to give notice of an application filed under S. 166 to the insurer. Where an insurer is not impleaded as a party, the Tribunal has to give notice of the application to an insurer. Irrespective of its impleadment, an insurer gets knowledge of proceedings filed under S. 166(1) from the Tribunal. This is perhaps one of the reasons for not using the expression 'or carries on business' in S. 166(2), as an insurer is not always expected to be arrayed as a defendant. (Para 9)

While considering an objection raised to the territorial jurisdiction of a Tribunal, the factors material at the original stage of the proceedings and those material at subsequent stages of the proceedings are also relevant. Under S. 169 of the Act of 1988, the Tribunal is required to follow a summary procedure as it thinks fit while deciding proceedings before it. The Tribunal has been granted powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and other ancillary matters. The general principles flowing from the Code have to be kept in mind while adjudicating an objection to territorial jurisdiction. The stage at which an objection based on lack of territorial jurisdiction is being considered is, therefore, relevant. If the same is raised before the Tribunal at an initial stage of the proceedings, the provisions of S. 166(2) would guide the Tribunal in the matter. If such objection is considered post award at an appellate stage, the threshold required would be to demonstrate failure of justice by virtue of the Tribunal exercising jurisdiction despite absence of territorial authority to do so. In the present case, the claimant himself impleaded the insurer as a party to the claim application and it raised an objection to territorial jurisdiction before the Tribunal itself. As the claim application of the claimant awaits adjudication by the Tribunal on merits, the requirements of S. 166(2) have to be satisfied and S. 21(1) of the Code is not attracted. (Para 10, 14)