Punjab and Haryana High Court remands case relating to Motor Vehicles Act to the Tribunal for a fresh decision

Must Read

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were...

Follow us

The present case (Bina Garg and Anr. vs. Sushil Kumar and Ors.) is an Appeal filed against a 2008 award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh.

Brief Facts of the Case 

The son of the claimants, Pranav Vishal Garg, had died in an accident which took place on 14.09.2004. On the said date, the deceased and his friend Amrit Thapa were on separate motorcycles. Mr. Garg was ahead of Amrit Thapa, who was on his motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-02A-3775. 

When Pranav Vishal Garg took a turn, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. UP-14D-0475 advanced from the side of Dadri in a rash and negligent manner. It hit his motorcycle from the back, thereby crushing both the rider and his vehicle. Mr. Garg died on the spot. When the matter went to the Tribunal, it dismissed the claimants’ petition on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. 

Contentions of the Parties 

The provision in dispute is Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This deals with the application for compensation in case of an accident. The Appellants contend that the Section allows them to file a claim petition at three places. First is where the accident took place. Second is where the claimant resides and carries on business. The third is where the defendant resides. The Respondent argued that the Tribunal lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the petition. The lack in the jurisdiction is because the Claimants did not live in Chandigarh and the accident did not take place there.

Court’s observations

In this case, the Claimants changed their address after the accident took place. The Court relied on the apex court judgement of Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. In this case, it was observed that where prejudice is caused to either party by the change in residence, the higher court cannot entertain any claims of jurisdiction. The Tribunal is a Court subordinate to the High Court. Further, the Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code bind the High Court while it exercises an appellate power.

The Court also stated that the Motor Vehicles Act was a benevolent piece of legislation. The above Section was a provision for the wellness of the victims of motor accidents. Therefore a hyper-technical approach is not advised in these matters. Moreover, there is no bar in filing a claim petition where the Claimants live at the time of filing of the petition. 

Court’s decision

The Decision passed by the Tribunal will not sustain and is set aside by the Court. The matter is also remanded to the Tribunal for deciding it afresh. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Supreme Court : High Courts Have Sole Authority Under Article 226 To Decide Validity of Tax Provision, Even if Matter Is Sub-Judice Before Income...

A Full Bench of the Supreme Court held that the validity of a provision is a serious matter which could only be decided by...

Kerala High Court Rejects Writ Petition for Rejection of Loan Application

Case: Anvardeen. K v. Union of India. Coram: Justice P.V. Asha On 24th November 2020, The Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the...

Supreme Court: Maritime Board Must Not Wallow in Inaction and Be Arbitrary in Its Contractual Duties

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that a State instrumentality such as the Maritime Board is expected to act without any arbitrariness...

Supreme Court: Right to Property Is a Constitutional Right, the Essence of Rule of Law Protects It

A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has held that permitting the State to assert indefinite right upon one’s property, without any legal sanction...

Madras High Court Directs Tahsildar To Issue Origin Certificates To Two Sisters in Two Writ Petitions

Two Writ Petitions by two siblings was filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitions owed to the fact that they were...

Delhi High Court Directs Centre and Delhi Govt To Consider a PIL Seeking Paid Menstrual Leave as Representation

The Delhi High Court had provided direction to consider a petition as representation. The Central and Delhi governments were directed to consider the same....

Madras High Court Reiterates That ‘Ignorance of Law’ Is Not an Excuse and Dismisses Petition by a Constable

A Constable committed bigamy and deserted his service for more than 21 days. After dismissal from his service, he moved to Tamil Nadu Administrative...

Transfer of Winding-up Proceedings Allowed Under S. 434, Restrictions Under 2016 Rules To Not Apply: Allahabad High Court

This appeal relates to the question of transfer of winding-up proceeding from the High Court (Company Court) to the NCLT.  Facts M/s. Girdhar Trading Company, 2nd...

Constitutional Court of South Africa Declares Provisions of Domestic Workers’ Injury Compensation Legislation To Be Unconstitutional

The Constitutional Court of South Africa in Sylvia Mahlangu v Minister of Labour , declared parts of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases...

Bail Granted Under Section 167(2) CrPC Can Be Cancelled Under Section 439(2) CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the right of default bail of the Accused can be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Facts...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -