SBCMA No.459/2008 Laxman Lal Vs. Kanti lal & Ors. -{1}- SBCMA No.459/2008 Laxman Lal Vs. Kanti lal & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : - 15.9.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Pankaj Sharma, for the appellant. Mr.Jagdish Vyas, for the respondent. <><><> Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant claimant is aggrieved against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara dated 15.2.2008 by which the tribunal in claim case No.343/2005 returned the claim petition to the claimant for presenting in the proper tribunal on account of want of territorial jurisdiction. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 9.9.2004 with clear averment that appellant is residing at Aazad Nagar, Bhilwara in the State of Rajasthan within the jurisdiction of the Bhilwara Court. The reply was filed by the respondent Insurance Company and in reply filed on 20.12.2005 no objection about lack of territorial jurisdiction was raised nor it was contended that appellant SBCMA No.459/2008 Laxman Lal Vs. Kanti lal & Ors. -{2}- is not residing at the address given by the appellant in Bhilwara. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal recorded evidence of the parties and ultimately on 22.8.2007, the respondent Insurance Company who was granted permission under Section 170 of the Motor Accident Act by order dated 10.10.2006 closed its evidence and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal fixed the case for final hearing. The arguments were heard on 12.2.2008 by the tribunal, and, thereafter, while deciding the claim petition of the claimant, the considered the application filed by the respondent Insurance Company dated 14.2.2007 in which objection was raised by the respondent that as per the respondent's survey they found that the appellant is not residing at Bhilwara, therefore, the tribunal at Bhilwara has no jurisdiction. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the tribunal committed serious error of fact in holding that appellant is not residing at Bhilwara and further committed error of law by allowing the objection on the ground of territorial jurisdiction after such a late state and that to it SBCMA No.459/2008 Laxman Lal Vs. Kanti lal & Ors. -{3}- was not persuaded and pressed by the respondent Insurance Company, which is clear from the facts on record. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Comopany vehemently submitted that in view of sub- section (2) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 only that tribunal has jurisdiction within local limits the accident occurred or the claimant resides or carrying on business. It is submitted that the appellant was not residing in Bhilwara and, therefore, the tribunal rightly passed the order returning the claim. 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 SBCMA No.459/2008 Laxman Lal Vs. Kanti lal & Ors. -{4}- 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 accident occurred on the road leading to the Puna, outside 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. SBCMA No.459/2008 Laxman Lal Vs. Kanti lal & Ors. -{5}- 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 lack of jurisdiction of the tribunal. Hence, the appeal of the appellant is allowed. The order dated 15.2008 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 alongwith record. Office is directed to send the copy of this order alongwith record to the tribunal forthwith. Both the parties shall remain present before the tribunal on 14.10.2008. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-