1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 250 of 1997 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY V/S SMT. RAMI DEVI & ORS Mr. RK MEHTA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. RAJESH PANWAR, Mr. ANIL VYAS, for the respondent Date of Judgment : 18.5.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. JUDGMENT -------- This appeal has been filed by the insurer against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bikaner dated 16.11.1997 awarding a compensation of Rs.3,40,400/- on account of death of Ishar Ram, who was travelling in the delinquent jeep No.892. The accident comprises of the event that unmindful of the oncoming train, the driver wanted to cross the railway track, at that time, the railway engine dashed against the jeep, as a result of which, the deceased died. The matter was heard for some time on 17.3.2009 as on that day, the contention was raised that since the deceased was an occupant of a private vehicle and the policy is only an Act Policy, the appellant could not be held liable, while the learned counsel for the claimant referred to Clause 4 of the General Exceptions of the Policy to contend that the 2 insurance company is liable even in the particular case in view of the existence of the stipulation in the agreement. The matter was then adjourned and was argued today at length on that aspect. However, learned counsel for the owner replying the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant could not be gone into in view of the prayer made in the appeal, which reads as under:- “It is, therefore prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted and the impugned judgement and award may kindly be set aside as the claim petition was filed beyond limitation and the Motor Claim Tribunal, Bikaner has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.” According to the learned counsel since the appeal has been filed only on the ground that the claim petition was filed beyond limitation and that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bikaner has no jurisdiction to entertain the present claim petition, and since no submissions have been made on these two aspects, the appeal is required to be dismissed straight-off. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the appellant made submissions on both these aspects and submitted that the accident, in the present case, occurred on 9.9.93, and the claim was filed on 8.3.95, while according to the language of Section 166(3), the claim was required to be filed within a period of six months. The other submission made is that in view of 3 the provisions of Section 166(2), the clam was required to be filed before the Tribunal, in whose jurisdiction, the accident occurred. In the present case, the accident occurred in the jurisdiction of the Tribunal Churu, while the claim has been filed at Tribunal Bikaner, and as such, the Tribunal Bikaner had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. I have considered these two submissions and find that Section 166 has undergone amendment w.e.f. 14.11.1994. By this amendment, sub-section (2) as it earlier existed, has been substituted whole-hog, and the substituted provision of sub-section (2) reads as under:- “(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.” Obviously, as on the date when the claim petition was filed being 8.3.1995, the substituted sub-sec.(2) existed, which gives the option to the claimant to file the claim, either to the Tribunal, having jurisdiction over the area, in which the 4 accident occurred, or to the Tribunal within the local limits, in whose jurisdiction, the claimant resides, or carries on business, or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the defendant resides. In the present case, the claimants claimed to be resident of Lunkaransar District Bikaner, and therefore, on the face of the provisions of Section 166(2) as it existed, on the date of filing of the claim petition, it cannot be said that the Claim Tribunal Bikaner had no jurisdiction. Likewise, so far the question of limitation is concerned, true it is that at the time, when the accident occurred, sub-sec.(3) of Section 166 existed, providing the time limit of 6 months, but then as on the date, when the claim was filed, being 8.3.95, that sub-sec.(3) came to be omitted w.e.f. 14.11.1994. The question, as to whether the omission of sub-sec.(3) would cover the cases, in which the accident occurred prior to 14.11.1994, or not, stands decided by this Court in the case of Smt.Radha Bai & Ors. Vs. Suresh Pal & Ors. reported in 1995(1) RLW (Raj.) 36 so also by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Dhannalal Vs. D.P.Vjayvargiya & Ors. reported in 1996(5) JT 601, therefore, it cannot be said that the claim petition is time barred either. Since from perusal of the relevant clause as quoted above, it is clear that the appellant prayed for setting aside of the awarding only on these two grounds, I need not go into the aspect, as to whether 5 the appellant is liable for the compensation for death of the occupant of the jeep or not. The appeal thus, has no force, and is dismissed. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/