If we have to accept the submission
of Mr. Chatterjee that since the insurance office has its regional office within the territorial
jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the said
petition then we will have to hold that whenever any accident occurs in any part of India, the
claimants can file a claim petition by accepting the jurisdiction of any Tribunal of his own
choice where the insurance company maintains either its regional office or a branch office,
even though the policy issuing office is not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Tribunal. If we agree with such submission of Mr. Chatterjee, then it will necessarily follow
that if an accident occurs at Delhi, a claimant residing at Delhi can file a claim petition at
Calcutta by taking the jurisdiction of the Calcutta Tribunal as the insurance company which
issued the insurance policy at Delhi also maintains a branch office at Calcutta within the
territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal at Calcutta. This is, in our view, impossible.
Certainly prejudice would be caused to the defendants, including the
insurance company, inasmuch as if, in such a case an application is allowed to be filed in
Calcutta, the policy issuing office of the insurance company will not feel it convenient to
contest the said proceeding in Calcutta as the relevant papers relating to the insurance
company are not maintained in its branch office at Calcutta. All papers relating to the
insurance company are maintained in the branch office which issued the insurance policy.
Before concluding we feel it necessary to indicate here that principle
which was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mantoo Sarkar (Supra) has
no application in the facts of the instant case as that was a case where we find that
undisputedly the victim had been working in the Nainital District and was residing there
during the period of accident. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Nainital was rightly
invoked in the said case, in exercise of the second option available to the claimants under
section 166(2) of the said Act. That apart, no objection relating to the jurisdiction of the said
Tribunal to entertain the claim petition was raised by any of the defendants of the said case
before the Tribunal. Such objection was raised for the first time before the High Court. In this
context it was held therein that such an objection cannot be raised before the High Court for
the first time, in view of section 21(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, but in the present case, the
facts are completely different. Here the insurance company appeared in the said proceeding
before the Tribunal and raised an objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the said Tribunal
to entertain the said claim petition in the written statement itself. Thus, before settlement of
the claim, such an objection was raised by the defendant in the said proceeding before the
Tribunal. As such, the principles which were laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
facts of the said case, cannot be applied in the instant case.
FMAT 1038 of 2012
Nirmala debi agarwal v ICICI Lombard
Re : CAN 562 of 2013.
Citation; 2015(1) ALLMR(JOURNAL)19
Print Page
