Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that the matter is covered by the judgment of coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Laxman Lal v. Kanti Lal and Ors. (S.B. CMA No. 459/2008) decided on 1 5/9/2008. He submits that the issue of territorial jurisdiction was not even framed and after the trial was completed, the learned MACT, Bhadra dismissed the claim petition only on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction with it. While controverting the ground of said dismissal of claim petition, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that at the fag end of the trial, the learned Tribunal should not have dismissed the claim petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
(2.) THIS Court in the aforesaid judgment held as under: I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the facts of the case. The facts referred above are not in dispute so far as filing of the claim by the claimant on 29th Sept., 2004, filing of reply by the respondent Insurance Company on 20/12/2005 and further there was no objection of the respondent about territorial jurisdiction of the tribunal in the reply. The evidence was recorded by the tribunal and the objection for territorial jurisdiction was raised by moving application on 14/2/2007. Thereafter, the proceedings continued and no order was sought by the respondent - Insurance Company on this application. The tribunal by order dated 28th May, 2007 has ordered that the issue raised by the respondent about the territorial jurisdiction shall be decided after evidence of the parties. The respondent -Insurance Company did not choose to produce any evidence with respect to any of their objection. In view of the above reasons, the objection of territorial jurisdiction was raised after inordinate delay in spite of having knowledge from beginning that accidence occurred on the road leading to the Puna, outside the State of Rajasthan and the claimant claimed that he is residing in Bhilwara. The respondent if collected some evidence with respect to the residence of the claimant then the respondent did not choose to produce any evidence even after passing of the order by the tribunal dated 28th May, 2007 wherein the tribunal held that issue will be decided after evidence of the parties. There is no reason for the court below to reject the evidence of the claimant when there was no rebuttal from the side of the respondent. In view of the above, the objection which was raised after inordinate delay should have been rejected by the tribunal and further on facts, the tribunal committed serious error in returning the claim. It is not a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction of the tribunal but it was an objection about territorial jurisdiction which cannot be inherent lac of jurisdiction of the tribunal. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is allowed. The order dated 15/2/2008 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the tribunal and tribunal shall decide the claim petition within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order along with record. Office is directed to send the copy of this order along with record to the tribunal forthwith. Sd/ -(Prakash Tatia), J. This Court is of the opinion that the present controversy is covered by the aforesaid judgment and the learned Tribunal has fallen into error in rejecting the claim petition.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , this appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 2/8/2008 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal with a direction to pass the award on merits. No order as to costs.;