BALVEER BATRAversusTHE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY & ANR.

                 [2024] 2 S.C.R. 1204 : 2024 INSC 361

                         Balveer Batra
                               v.
            The New India Assurance Company & Anr.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 1842 of 2024)
                               08 February 2024
              [C.T. Ravikumar* and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.]

                            Issue for Consideration
       The question of territorial jurisdiction was decided by the Tribunal
       after about 4 years since the filing of the claim petition and the
       appeal filed in 2010 was dismissed, confirming the dismissal of
       the claim petition after about 6 years.

                                   Headnotes
       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 –
       Victim (son of appellant) died in an motor vehicle accident
       – Appellant filed an application u/s. 166 of the MV before the
       tribunal – Issues framed – Both sides examined witnesses –
       Tribunal held that the mere fact that the insurance company
       got an office within the jurisdictional limits of the Tribunal
       could not confer jurisdiction on it – Based on negative finding
       on question of territorial jurisdiction, Tribunal decided all the
       other six issues against the claimant and in favour of the
       opposite parties – Claim petition was dismissed – High Court
       confirmed the view of the tribunal – Correctness:
       Held: The words ‘at the option of the claimant’ employed in s.166(2)
       assumes relevance – Indubitably, the statute indicates that option
       lies with the claimant – Merely because the claimant made the
       application for compensation not to the Claims Tribunal having
       jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or not
       to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
       he resides or carries on business, is no reason to dismiss the
       application provided it is filed before a Claims Tribunal where it is
       otherwise maintainable – The branch of the insurance company lied
       within the limits of the Tribunal where the subject claim petition was
       filed – Further, for the purpose of deciding the issue of territorial
       jurisdiction, the Tribunal permitted the parties to adduce evidence
       for it – In terms of Or. XIV, Rule 2 CPC, the issues regarding
       territorial jurisdiction ought to be tried as primary issues but when
* Author
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                                   1205

      Balveer Batra v. The New India Assurance Company & Anr.


     it is evident that the issue could not be decided solely based on
     the pleadings in the plaint (here claim petition) and when parties
     are permitted to adduce evidence upon finding that it is a mixed
     question of law and facts there was absolutely no justification for
     not pronouncing an award on all the issues framed besides the
     one pertaining to its territorial jurisdiction – In the case on hand a
     great illegality or error was committed by the Tribunal even after
     observing that it got no occasion to examine the other six issues
     but then deciding those six issues against the claimant and in
     favour of the opposite parties – The said other six issues were
     examined without going into the merits – The very purpose of the
     benevolent legislation providing for grant of compensation under
     Section 166 of the M.V. Act was defeated – The claim petition
     was kept for 4 years and it was dismissed only on the ground
     of lack of jurisdiction – The High Court has fallen in error in not
     picking up the illegalities resulting in failure of justice and to resolve
     them appropriately – Considering the circumstances, the matter
     remanded back to the Tribunal, to proceed further and to decide
     the claim petition on merits. [Paras 17, 26, 28, 32]
     Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.21 – Objection as to lack
     of territorial jurisdiction would not make a judgment/decree
     nullity:
     Held: A bare perusal of Section 21, CPC would reveal that objection
     as to the place of suing is not to be entertained by any Appellate
     or Revisional Court if it was not taken in the Court of first instance
     at the earliest possible opportunity and unless there has been a
     consequent failure of justice – While looking into the object and
     reasons for the aforesaid provision it is very clear as to why lack
     of territorial jurisdiction by itself was not recognized under it as a
     reason to make a judgment/decree a nullity – It is to be noted that
     it is quite different and distinct from inherent lack of jurisdiction
     which would strike at the very authority of the Court to try a case
     and pass a judgment/decree and would make it a nullity – On a
     careful consideration of the provisions under Section 21, CPC, it
     would make it clear though taking of an objection as to the lack of
     territorial jurisdiction before the Court of first instance at the earliest
     opportunity is a condition required to raise that objection before
     an appellate or revisional Court satisfaction of such condition by
     itself would not make an award granting compensation a nullity
     inasmuch as in such cases there would not be inherent lack of
1206                                                          [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


    jurisdiction in Court in regard to the subject matter – Therefore,
    in such cases, correction by a Court is open, only if it occasions
    in failure of justice – The provision thus, reflects the legislative
    intention that all possible care should be taken to ensure that
    the time, energy and labour spent by a Court did not go in vain
    unless there has been a consequent failure of justice. [Para 13]

                             Case Law Cited
         Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Ltd. [2016]
         1 SCR 601 : (2016) 3 SCC 43; Kiran Singh v. Chaman
         Paswan [1955] 1 SCR 117 : AIR 1954 SC 340; Mantoo
         Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2008] 17
         SCR 753 : (2009) 2 SCC 244; United India Insurance
         Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta [2011] 14 SCR 763 : (2011) 10
         SCC 509; Sharanamma and Others v. M.D., Divisional
         Contr. Nekrtc (2013) 11 SCC 517; Morgan Securities
         & Credit (P) Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd. [2006] Supp. 10
         SCR 1022 : (2006) 12 SCC 642 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
    Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

                             List of Keywords
    Motor Vehicle Accident; Claim; Settlement of issues; Examination
    of witnesses; Jurisdiction; Lack of territorial jurisdiction; Inherent
    lack of jurisdiction; Non-examination of other issues after deciding
    issue of lack of territorial jurisdiction; Section 166 of the Motor
    Vehicles Act, 1988; Section 21 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
    Or. XIV, Rule 2 of Code Civil Procedure, 1908; Failure of Justice.

                            Case Arising From
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1842 of 2024
    From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2016 of the High Court of
    Uttarakhand at Nainital in AFO No. 414 of 2010
                        Appearances for Parties
    Ravindra S. Garia, Shashank Singh, Madan Chandra Karnataka,
    Advs. for the Appellant.
    J.P.N. Shahi, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the Respondents.
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                         1207

      Balveer Batra v. The New India Assurance Company & Anr.


                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment
     C.T. Ravikumar, J.
     Leave granted.
1.   This appeal by Special Leave is directed against the judgment and
     order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand
     at Nainital in Appeal from Order No. 414 of 2010.
2.   The appellant is the father of the victim of a motor vehicle accident.
     His son, the victim, met with the unfortunate accident causing his
     death while underway on his motorcycle from Dineshpur to Gadarpur
     and stopped it in the midway to urinate. A tractor bearing number
     UP-02A-2213 being driven recklessly and negligently by the first
     respondent hit him and his motorcycle and he died instantaneously.
     The incident occurred on 07.03.2006 at about 07.30 pm. The appellant
     filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
     (for short ‘MV Act’ only) for compensation before the Motor Accident
     Claims Tribunal at Nainital as MACP No.137/2006. The Tribunal
     dismissed the application for lack of territorial jurisdiction. Aggrieved
     by the same, the appellant herein preferred an appeal before the High
     Court and the same also met with the same fate. Hence, this appeal.
3.   Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the counsel
     appearing for the respondent-insurance company.
4.   A brief reference to the facts which led to the concurrent, adverse
     decisions, as mentioned above, is required for an appropriate
     disposal of this appeal. As a matter of fact, respondent Nos. 2 and
     3 herein / opposite parties 1 and 2 in the claim petition, filed a joint
     written statement, inter alia, raising the question of maintainability on
     the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The averments therein,
     taken note of the Claims Tribunal in its award, would reveal that
     even while raising such objection they would admit the death of the
     appellant’s son in the accident involving the aforementioned tractor
     though they disputed the nature of its occurrence. In paragraph 3
     of the award of the Tribunal such averments are noted down thus:-
           “that on the day of alleged accident, the driver of Tractor
           was being driven the tractor in its side, but deceased
           himself hit by driving motorcycle rash and negligently,
1208                                                        [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


          consequently he received injuries; that on the day of
          accident, they opposite party No.1 was driving the tractor
          with valid driving licence; that the Tractor in question is
          insured with O.P. No.3, the New India Insurance Company.”
5.   The first-respondent viz., the opposite party No.3 too, raised the
     objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim
     petition and over and above in the written statement respondent
     No.1 herein stated thus, as can be seen from paragraph 4 of the
     award of the Tribunal:-
          “that the sole cause of accident is rash and negligent driving
          of the motor vehicle bearing registration No. UA06(A)-9229,
          which was also involved in the accident, that in case of
          involvement of two motor vehicles in the alleged accident,
          the tribunal has to determine the composite/contributory
          negligence of each driver thereof and its effects; that the
          answering party has not been given any information as
          provided under Section 158 (6) of the Motor Vehicle Act
          and the petition is bad for non-joinder of the party.”
6.   It is based on such pleadings that the Tribunal had framed seven
     issues as hereunder:-
          "1.   Whether on 07.03.2006 at around 7.30 when deceased
                Rohit Batra on his Motorcycle No.UA06A9229 was
                going from Dineshpur to Gadarpur then near Village
                Varkheda, PS Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar,
                Tractor No. UP2A-2213, being driven recklessly
                and negligently by the driver hit his motorcycle from
                behind, due to which the deceased suffered serious
                injuries and his death was caused due to such injuries,
                as has been stated in the claim petition?
          2.    Whether the said accident was caused by the
                deceased himself driving his motorcycle No.UA6A
                9229 recklessly and negligently, as has been stated by
                the Defendant No.1, 2 & 3 in their Written Statements?
          3.    Whether the said accident was caused due to
                contributory negligence of both the drivers as
                has been stated by Defendant No.3 in his written
                statement?
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                            1209

      Balveer Batra v. The New India Assurance Company & Anr.


           4.   Whether the claim is effective due to not making
                insurance company of the motorcycle No.UA06A-9229,
                which is a necessary party, a party in the case?
           5.   Whether this Tribunal does not have the territorial
                jurisdiction to entertain the claim as has been
                stated by the Defendant No.1, 2 & 3 in their written
                statement?
           6.   Whether the tractor in question at the time of accident
                was insured with the defendant No.3, insurance
                company and whether it was being run in accordance
                with the terms and condition of the insurance policy?
           7.   Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation
                and if yes, then how much and who is liable to be
                paid?”
7.   After framing issues as above, the Tribunal firstly considered issue
     No.5, pertaining to the territorial jurisdiction, assigning the reason that
     the rest of the issues are dependent on the decision on issue No.5.
     Nonetheless, the indisputable position is that by that time four years,
     since filing of the claim petition, had lapsed and in the meanwhile
     both sides had also examined witnesses. While being examined as
     PW-1, the appellant deposed that at the time of accident in question
     he was a resident of Haldwani, District Nainital, and the accident
     had occurred within the limits of the adjoining district of Udham
     Singh Nagar. True that at the time of filing the claim petition he was
     not residing in Haldwani. The Tribunal, based on the said factual
     position of evidence, came to the conclusion that the claimant is not
     residing within its territorial jurisdiction. It also took note of the fact
     that the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 are also not residing within its
     jurisdiction and proceeded to consider its territorial jurisdiction. In
     that regard, the Tribunal has also held that the mere fact that the
     insurance company got an office within the jurisdictional limits of the
     Tribunal could not confer jurisdiction on it. Based on such conclusions
     and findings, answered issue No.5 to the effect that it lacks territorial
     jurisdiction. Thereupon, as relates the other issues it was held thus:-
           “21. ISSUES NO.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7:
           At the main issue (issue no.5) for territorial jurisdiction of
           this tribunal has been decided against the claimants, hence
1210                                                           [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                            Digital Supreme Court Reports


             there is no occasion to examine the other issues on merits. In
             view of above issue No.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are also decided
             against the claimants and in favour of the opposite parties.”
                                                    (Underline supplied)
8.    After answering the issues as above, the claim petition was
      dismissed. As noted above, the High Court confirmed the judgment/
      award solely considering the question of territorial jurisdiction of
      the Tribunal.
9.    The core contention of the appellant revolves around the decision of
      this Court in Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Ltd.1
      Though the same was relied on by the Appellant before the High
      Court, it distinguished the decision on facts and held it inapplicable.
      A bare perusal of the said decision would reveal the very question
      formulated and answered by this Court in Malati Sardar’s case
      (supra). The same assumes relevance in the context of the rival
      contentions and it reads as follows:-
             “The question raised in this appeal is whether the High
             Court was justified in setting aside the award of the Motor
             Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolkata only on the ground
             that the Tribunal did not have the territorial jurisdiction”.
10. Paragraph 10 of the decision in Malati Sardar’s case is also relevant
    for the purpose of knowing the factual position under which such
    a question was formulated and answered. It reads thus-
             “The question for consideration thus is whether the
             Tribunal at Kolkata had the jurisdiction to decide the
             claim application under Section 166 of the Act when the
             accident took place outside Kolkata jurisdiction and the
             claimant also resided outside Kolkata jurisdiction, but the
             respondent being a juristic person carried on business
             at Kolkata. Further the question is whether in absence
             of failure of justice, the High Court could set aside the
             award of the Tribunal on the ground of lack of territorial
             jurisdiction.”
                                                     (underline supplied)


1    [2016] 1 SCR 601 : (2016) 3 SCC 43
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                         1211

       Balveer Batra v. The New India Assurance Company & Anr.


11. Noticeably, in that case the Tribunal entertained the claim petition
    and awarded compensation and the High Court, at the instance of
    the insurance company, considered and reversed the decision on
    the question of territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal of
    the insurance company was allowed and the party was directed
    to refund of the amount deposited / paid, if any, to the appellant
    insurance company. After framing the said question in the above
    factual backdrop, it was answered in Malati Sardar’s case by
    placing reliance on the earlier decision of this Court in Kiran Singh
    v. Chaman Paswan2. This Court held that the provision in question is
    a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving
    and in such circumstances, it has to be interpreted with the object
    of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Furthermore, it
    was held in paragraph 16 thereof, thus:-
            “……Hyper technical approach in such matters can hardly
            be appreciated. There is no bar to a claim petition being
            filed at a place where the insurance company, which is
            the main contesting party in such cases, has its business.
            In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party. There
            is no failure of justice”.
                                                 (underline supplied)
12. Malati Sardar’s case was decided after referring to the decisions
    in Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.3 and in
    Kiran Singh’s case (supra), as mentioned above. A bare perusal
    of the decisions in Mantoo Sarkar’s case (supra), Kiran Singh’s
    case (supra) and Malati Sardar’s case (supra) would reveal that in
    all those decisions the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction was
    overruled by the Tribunal concerned and thereafter compensation
    was awarded. It is only at the appellate stage that the respondents’
    objection as to the territorial jurisdiction was upheld and the award
    was upturned. Evidently, in all those cases this Court referred to
    Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the ‘CPC’ only)
    and it reads thus:-
            “21. Objections to jurisdiction.— [(1)] No objection as to
            the place of suing shall be allowed by any Appellate or


2   [1955] 1 SCR 117 : AIR 1954 SC 340
3   [2008] 17 SCR 753 : (2009) 2 SCC 244
1212                                                         [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


           Revisional Court unless such objection was taken in the
           Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity
           and in all cases where issues are settled at or before
           such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent
           failure of justice.”
13. A bare perusal of Section 21, CPC would reveal that objection as
    to the place of suing is not to be entertained by any Appellate or
    Revisional Court if it was not taken in the Court of first instance
    at the earliest possible opportunity and unless there has been a
    consequent failure of justice. While looking into the object and
    reasons for the aforesaid provision it is very clear as to why lack
    of territorial jurisdiction by itself was not recognized under it as a
    reason to make a judgment/decree a nullity. It is to be noted that it
    is quite different and distinct from inherent lack of jurisdiction which
    would strike at the very authority of the Court to try a case and
    pass a judgment/decree and would make it a nullity. On a careful
    consideration of the provisions under Section 21, CPC, we are of
    the considered view that the provisions would undoubtedly make
    it clear though taking of an objection as to the lack of territorial
    jurisdiction before the Court of first instance at the earliest opportunity
    is a condition required to raise that objection before an appellate
    or revisional Court satisfaction of such condition by itself would
    not make an award granting compensation a nullity inasmuch as
    in such cases there would not be inherent lack of jurisdiction in
    Court in regard to the subject matter. Therefore, in such cases,
    correction by a Court is open, only if it occasions in failure of
    justice. The provision thus, reflects the legislative intention that all
    possible care should be taken to ensure that the time, energy and
    labour spent by a Court did not go in vain unless there has been
    a consequent failure of justice.
14. In the above view of the matter the decision in Mantoo Sarkar’s
    case (supra) and Malati Sardar’s case (supra) that objection of
    lack of territorial jurisdiction in an appeal against an award granting
    compensation could not be entertained in the absence of consequent
    failure of justice, according to us, should be followed with alacrity
    and promptitude.
15. The question in the instant case is, however, slightly different
    inasmuch as, here the Tribunal’s decision itself is to the effect that
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                           1213

      Balveer Batra v. The New India Assurance Company & Anr.


     it lacks territorial jurisdiction and it was that finding which obtained
     conformance under the impugned judgment of the High Court. A
     glance at the factual matrix is profitable for considering the moot
     point involved in the case on hand. Firstly, it is to be noted that the
     claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act filed in the year
     2006 was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction
     only on 06.10.2010. Thus, it is evident that the Tribunal which was
     obliged to decide the question of jurisdiction at the threshold, finding
     it difficult to decide the same without letting the parties to adduce
     evidence permitted parties to adduce their evidence. The materials
     on record would reveal that before the Tribunal, on behalf of the
     claimants PW1 to PW3 were examined and on behalf of opposite
     party Nos. 1 and 2 viz., respondents 2 and 3 herein, opposite Party
     No. 1 Mr. Tula Singh was examined as DW1. Paragraph 7 of the
     Tribunal’s judgment would further reveal that the first respondent
     herein viz., the insurance company which was opposite party No. 3
     therein, did not examine any witness in support of its pleadings, but
     cross-examined prosecution witnesses. Add to it, it is a fact that the
     first respondent-Insurance Company got its branch within the limits
     of the Tribunal where the subject claim petition was filed.
16. In the context of the question emerging for consideration it is
    apposite to refer to the relevant provisions prescribing the forum
    for adjudication of compensation arising out of an accident of
    the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 of the M.V.
    Act and also the provision prescribing the options available to a
    claimant in regard to place(s) for suing for such compensation viz.,
    sub-section (1) of Section 165 and sub-section (2) of Section 166
    of the M.V. Act. They read thus:-
           “165. Claims Tribunals.—(1) A State Government may,
           by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or
           more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereafter in this
           Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area
           as may be specified in the notification for the purpose
           of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect
           of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to,
           persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or
           damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both.
                    ***          ***          ***           ***
1214                                                     [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


          166. (1)........
          (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be
          made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims
          Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the
          accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the
          local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or
          carries on business or within the local limits of whose
          jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such
          form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:
          Provided that where no claim for compensation under
          section 140 is made in such application, the application
          shall contain a separate statement to that effect
          immediately before the signature of the applicant.”
17. The words ‘at the option of the claimant’ employed in Section
    166(2) and the options available to a claimant in regard to places
    for suing for such compensation under Section 166 (2), assume
    relevance for consideration of the moot question. Indubitably,
    the statute indicates that option lies with the claimant to make
    application for compensation either to the Claims Tribunal having
    jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to
    the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
    the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local
    limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. There can be
    no doubt with respect to the position that if more than one Court
    has jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute it will be open to the party
    concerned to choose one of the competent Courts to decide his
    dispute. Thus, it is obvious that merely because the claimant made
    the application for compensation not to the Claims Tribunal having
    jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or not
    to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
    he resides or carries on business, is no reason to dismiss the
    application provided it is filed before a Claims Tribunal where it
    is otherwise maintainable. This aspect calls for consideration not
    solely confining to strict construction of the rest of the provision
    under Section 166 (2) of the M.V. Act, but by looking into various
    other authorities, as well.
18. In the aforementioned context, it is not inappropriate to refer to the
    decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                            1215

       Balveer Batra v. The New India Assurance Company & Anr.


     Datta4, wherein it was held that an award by Tribunal could not
     be seen as adversarial adjudication between litigating parties to a
     dispute and in troth, it is a statutory determination of compensation
     on the occurrence of an accident, after due enquiry.
19. In the decision in Mantoo Sarkar’s case (supra) after extracting
    sub-section (2) of Section 166, M.V. Act, in paragraph 11 thereof, this
    Court held that M.V. Act is a special statute and the jurisdiction of
    the Claims Tribunal having regard to the terminologies used therein
    must be held to be wider than the civil Court.
20. In the contextual situation it is relevant to note that in Mantoo Sarkar’s
    case (supra) while considering predominantly the scope of appellate
    interference in view of Section 21, CPC, even after referring to
    Section 166 (2) of the M.V. Act, this Court made certain observations
    which could be, rather, should be attuned to the situation obtained in
    the case on hand. This Court held that a distinction must be made
    between the jurisdiction with regard to the subject matter of the suit
    and that of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction and further that in
    the case falling within the former category the judgement would be
    in nullity and in the latter category it would not be. In paragraph 18
    thereof, this Court held thus:-
            “18. The Tribunal is a court subordinate to the High Court.
            An appeal against the Tribunal lies before the High Court.
            The High Court, while exercising its appellate power,
            would follow the provisions contained in the Code of Civil
            Procedure or akin thereto. In view of sub-section (1) of
            Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was, therefore,
            obligatory on the part of the appellate court to pose unto
            itself the right question viz. whether the first respondent
            has been able to show sufferance of any prejudice. If it
            has not suffered any prejudice or otherwise no failure
            of justice had occurred, the High Court should not have
            entertained the appeal on that ground alone.”
21. Section 173 of the M.V. Act provides for filing appeal by any person
    aggrieved by an award by a Claims Tribunal. In the decision in
    Sharanamma and Others v. M.D., Divisional Contr. Nekrtc5, this


4   [2011] 14 SCR 763 : (2011) 10 SCC 509
5   (2013) 11 SCC 517
1216                                                           [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


     Court held that a bare reading of Section 173 shows that there is
     no curtailment or limitations on the powers of the appellate court to
     consider the entire case on facts and law. When that be the position,
     indubitably, it could be said that consideration of the question of
     sufferance or prejudice in regard to a finding on territorial jurisdiction
     besides its correctness is required in appeals against awards declining
     compensation upholding the objection on territorial jurisdiction of
     the opposite parties. Since the provisions for grant of compensation
     under Section 166 is one of benevolence if an illegality resulting in
     failure of justice is discernable from the materials on record, even if
     in respect of which no specific pleading is taken, the Court is bound
     to take it into consideration.
22. The further support of the above view can be taken from paragraph
    16 of the decision in Malati Sardar’s case (supra), extracted
    hereinbefore, wherein this Court held that provision under Section
    166 for grant of compensation in respect of an accident of the nature
    specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 165 being a benevolent
    provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving, the provision
    for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object
    of facilitating remedies for the victims of accident. Furthermore, it
    was held in the said decision that hyper technical approach in such
    matters could hardly be appreciated and there would be no bar to a
    claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company,
    which is the main contesting party in such cases, has its business.
23. In the aforementioned context, it is worthwhile to note the prejudice
    rather, failure of justice caused to the applicant in the case on hand, is
    evident from the very award of the Claims Tribunal though it escaped
    the attention of the High Court. The claim petition filed in the year
    2006 was dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction
    not at the threshold, but only on 06.10.2010. Dismissal, simpliciter of
    a claim petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction would
    not and could not disable the claimant concerned to initiate another
    proceeding before the Claims Tribunal of competence. However,
    a bare perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, to be precise
    paragraph 21 would reveal that after returning an adverse finding
    on the question of territorial jurisdiction against the claimant, the
    Tribunal proceeded further and decided all other issues framed for the
    consideration viz., issues No.1 to 4, 6 and 7 (extracted hereinbefore)
    against the claimant and in favour of the opposite parties, that too,
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                          1217

       Balveer Batra v. The New India Assurance Company & Anr.


     after making it clear that it had no occasion to examine such issues
     on merits. Paragraph 21 of the award reads thus:-
            “21. ISSUES NO.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7:
            At the main issue (issue no.5) for territorial jurisdiction
            of this tribunal has been decided against the claimants,
            hence there is no occasion to examine the other issues
            on merits. In view of above issue No.1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7
            are also decided against the claimants and in favour of
            the opposite parties.”
24. There cannot be any dispute with respect to the fact that when such
    a finding is entered in respect of those issues framed, may be after
    making an observation that the Tribunal got no occasion to examine
    such issues on merits, the claimant would not be in a position to
    initiate another proceeding before another Claims Tribunal having
    territorial jurisdiction. In this regard it is to be noted that lacking
    territorial jurisdiction cannot be a reason, in view of Section 165 (1),
    M.V. Act, to say that Claims Tribunal was not having competence
    to adjudicate the subject-matter of the claim petition. Since issues
    were framed and decided against the claimant and in favour of the
    opposite parties, whether or not such findings were returned after
    examining such issues on merits it would cause legal trammel in view
    of the principle of res judicata. We have already found that a decree
    dismissing a suit on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction is not
    a nullity. Though Section 168, M.V. Act, carrying the caption ‘Award
    of the Claims Tribunal’ on perusal, at the first blush may appear to
    mean only a decision of the Claims Tribunal granting compensation
    to the claimant concerned. However, that certainly is not the correct
    construction of the said provision. Section 169(2), M.V. Act, clothes
    a Claims Tribunal with all the powers of a Civil Court. In the decision
    in Morgan Securities & Credit (P) Ltd. v. Modi Rubber Ltd.6 this
    Court observed and held that the expression ‘award’ has a distinct
    connotation and it envisages a binding decision of a judicial or a
    quasi-judicial authority. That apart, Section 173, M.V. Act, provides
    an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal to the High Court
    subject to sub-Section (2) thereof, and it entitles any person aggrieved
    by an award of a Claims Tribunal to prefer it to the High Court.


6   [2006] Supp. 10 SCR 1022 : (2006) 12 SCC 642
1218                                                          [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


25. We have already referred to the error, rather an illegality committed
    by the Claims Tribunal in deciding issues 1 to 4, 6 and 7 against the
    claimant and in favour of the opposite parties viz., the respondents
    herein even after making it clear it had no occasion to examine
    them on merits and solely because it returned a negative finding
    on the question of its territorial jurisdiction to maintain the subject
    claim petition. This error or mistake that resulted in great prejudice
    escaped the attention of the High Court while exercising the power
    under Section 173, M.V. Act, in the appeal filed by an appellant
    herein against the award of the Tribunal.
26. In this context, it is to be noted that the materials on record and the
    discussions of the evidence by the Claims Tribunal would reveal that
    there was no serious dispute regarding the occurrence of accident in
    question in which the appellant’s son lost his life and also of the fact
    that in the said accident involving the vehicle insured with the first
    respondent-the insurance company. It is true that respondent Nos.
    1 and 2 have disputed the nature of its occurrence. There seems
    to be no dispute regarding the fact that the deceased sustained
    injuries and succumbed to it instantaneously. We have already noted
    that it was after keeping the claim petition filed in 2006 for about 4
    years i.e. only on 06.10.2010 that it was dismissed on the ground
    of lacking territorial jurisdiction and that the appeal filed against
    the same in the year 2010 was dismissed, confirming the award
    passed by the Tribunal, after about 6 years viz. on 28.11.2016. We
    have no hesitation to hold that in the totality of the circumstances,
    revealed from the indisputable factual position there was absolutely
    no justification for the High Court to confine its consideration only on
    the question of correctness of the finding on territorial jurisdiction and
    at the same time, to hold all the other issues against the claimant(s)
    and in favour of the opposite parties.
27. In the above context, it is to be noted that for the purpose of deciding
    the issue of territorial jurisdiction, the Tribunal permitted the parties to
    adduce evidence before it. The position obtained in the case would
    reveal that the Tribunal had actually proceeded with the claim petition
    despite holding the view that it got no territorial jurisdiction. In such
    indisputable position, it is only apposite to refer to Order XIV, Rule
    2 of CPC which mandates a Court to pronounce a judgment on all
    the issues. The said provision reads thus:-
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                           1219

      Balveer Batra v. The New India Assurance Company & Anr.


           “2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.—(1)
           Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a
           preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions
           of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues.
           (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same
           suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part
           thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may
           try that issue first if the issue relates to—
           (a)   the jurisdiction of the Court, or
           (b)   a bar to the suit created by any law for the time
                 being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks
                 fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until
                 after that issue has been determined, and may deal
                 with the suit in accordance with the decision on that
                 issue.”
28. True that in terms of the said provision, the issues regarding territorial
    jurisdiction ought to be tried as primary issues but when it is evident
    that the issue could not be decided solely based on the pleadings
    in the plaint (here claim petition) and when parties are permitted
    to adduce evidence upon finding that it is a mixed question of law
    and facts there was absolutely no justification for not pronouncing
    an award on all the issues framed besides the one pertaining to its
    territorial jurisdiction. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the
    fact that when evidence was permitted to be let in, may be for such
    issues the possibility of re-appreciation and consequent reversal of
    finding(s) of the Tribunal cannot be ruled out. But then, if the award
    was pronounced not at threshold, but after a very long lapse of time
    and confining consideration only on the issue of territorial jurisdiction
    and then, answering the other issues as well against the claimant
    without examining them on their own merits, but solely because of the
    negative finding on the issue of territorial jurisdiction, as occurred in
    the case on hand, it would defeat the very purpose of the benevolent
    legislation providing for grant of compensation under Section 166
    of the M.V. Act. As noticed hereinbefore in this case, the question
    of territorial jurisdiction was decided by the Tribunal after about 4
    years since the filing of the claim petition and the appeal filed in
    2010 was dismissed, confirming the dismissal of the claim petition
    after about 6 years. We have also already noted that in the case on
1220                                                         [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     hand a great illegality or error has been committed by the Tribunal
     even after observing that it got no occasion to examine the other six
     issues but then deciding those six issues against the claimant and
     in favour of the opposite parties. Since a Claims Tribunal constituted
     under Section 165, M.V. Act even when lacking territorial jurisdiction
     cannot be said to be lacking jurisdiction on the subject matter in a
     claim petition and the award would not be a nullity and therefore,
     the findings on other issues would be binding on the parties. Hence,
     in the first instance, failure of justice occurred as the award of the
     Tribunal virtually rendered the claimant remediless. In cases of this
     nature, sometimes a remand may also be a futility as passage of
     such long period may make witnesses unavailable for examination or
     re-examination for various reasons. Such reasons may also include
     death of the witness(s). Since the present imbroglio is created because
     of a mistake or error on the part of the Tribunal, either in proceeding
     further after returning a negative finding on the question of territorial
     jurisdiction or in not pronouncing award on all issues, we are of the
     considered view that the said mistake not entering on merits and
     into a findings on issues No.1 to 4, 6 and 7 at paragraph 21 against
     the claimant and in favour of the opposite parties without examining
     them on merits and hence, they are liable to be set aside in the light
     of the salutary maxim ‘Actus Curiae neminem gravabit’, as no party
     shall be put to suffer for the mistake of a Court.
29. We have already referred to the provision under Order XIV, Rule 2,
    CPC, observed and held while in certain circumstances it would be
    inevitable to pronounce judgment/award on all issues as mandated
    thereunder. We are not oblivious of the provision under Section
    169 of the M.V. Act. In this regard, it is apt to refer to paragraph 15
    of the decision in Mantoo Sarkar’s case (supra) where this Court
    held as under:-
          “15. No doubt the Tribunal must exercise jurisdiction having
          regard to the ingredients laid down under sub-section (2)
          of Section 166 of the Act. We are not unmindful of the
          fact that in terms of Section 169 of the Act, the Tribunal,
          subject to any rules, may follow a summary procedure
          and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure under
          the Act have a limited application but in terms of the
          rules “save and except” any specific provision made in
          that behalf, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure
[2024] 2 S.C.R.                                                       1221

      Balveer Batra v. The New India Assurance Company & Anr.


           would apply. Even otherwise the principles laid down in
           the Code of Civil Procedure may be held to be applicable
           in a case of this nature.”
30. Since, there is no specific provision to deal with a situation akin to
    the situation in the case on hand, the said observation in Mantoo
    Sarkar’s case (supra) would apply to the case on hand with all its
    force.
31. In view of the nature of this case, as observed in Mantoo Sarkar’s
    case (supra), we would have even exercised our extraordinary
    jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do
    complete justice between the parties by determining the question of
    compensation as the accident in question occurred on 07.03.2006.
    Despite the death of the son of the appellant in the said accident the
    fact is that the claimant did not get compensation despite the passage
    of more than 18 years. We have already noted that all relevant
    issues were framed by the Tribunal for the purpose of determination
    of compensation. However, even after deciding to permit the parties
    to adduce evidence the Tribunal in the instant case, appears to have
    confined it for the purpose of deciding the only question of territorial
    jurisdiction and therefore, in the absence of evidence on necessary
    ingredients for determination of compensation payable, we are not
    in a position to determine the compensation as in view of the factual
    position obtained in the instant case sufficient to apply the decisions
    in Mantoo Sarkar’s case (supra) as also Malati Sardar’s case
    (supra) to reverse the finding on territorial jurisdiction. The High
    Court has fallen in error in not picking up the illegalities resulting in
    failure of justice and to resolve them appropriately. For the purpose
    of determining the compensation in respect of a case of this nature
    the relevant factors and dates necessary for computing ultimately
    the quantum of compensation, are not available on record, before
    us. Though, we are pained and peeved, we have no option, but to
    remand the matter after a long period of 18 years, which could have
    been avoided had the Tribunal followed Order XIV, Rule 2, CPC.
    Taking note of such circumstances and the prejudice already caused
    to the claimant(s) and further that directing the Motor Accident Claims
    Tribunal at Nainital to restore MACP No.137/2006 and fix a date
    for the appearance of the parties and then proceed to consider the
    question of grant of compensation, ignoring its finding on territorial
    jurisdiction would have no prejudice to the parties as they had already
1222                                                         [2024] 2 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     examined witnesses before the Claims Tribunal, we are inclined to
     remand the matter to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nainital.
     We hold that it would not cause any prejudice to the opposite parties
     as they have already filed the written statements before the Tribunal
     despite objecting to the territorial jurisdiction and even thereafter
     have chosen to adduce oral evidence before the Tribunal, to some
     extent. It is also a fact that the first respondent-insurance company
     got its office in Nainital or in other words it is conducting its business
     within the limits of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nainital and
     the fact is that cross-examination of witnesses were done on its
     behalf as well. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the fact
     that the subject matter of claim is within jurisdiction of the Claims
     Tribunal, at Nainital.
32. For all these reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment and
    order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand
    at Nainital in appeal from order No.414 of 2010 arising from the
    Award in MACP No.137/2006 and also the award dated 06.10.2010
    passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nainital. To enable
    the Tribunal to proceed further and to decide the claim petition on
    merits, MACP No.137/2006 is restored into its file and in view of the
    long lapse of time there will be a further direction that the Tribunal
    shall conclude the entire exercise after permitting parties to adduce
    further evidence, if any, within a period of six months from the date
    of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
33. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal either in person or
    through counsel on 20.05.2024 and thereupon, the Tribunal shall
    conclude the proceedings within the above stipulated time. In the
    peculiar circumstances to comply with the direction, the Registry
    shall forward copies of this judgment to all the parties. The appeal
    is disposed of as above.

     Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan                      Result of the case:
                                                            Appeal disposed of.