vAGWQW w“ éVl// BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHAHTTISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ ' ' - Qwmgmw United India Insurance Company Limited, City Branch Office, Amar Complex, Jeev‘an Beema Marg, Raipur (ChhattiSgarh) EAL Unmizk sEmIO/vjflE NOToR VEHILLE ACTmgg Wm ' M.A.NO. K gé [2004 APPELLANT xk 19. x SmtRukhmaniBai, wife of Shri APPLICANT 1’ -" W 0/\< Hallu Ram Sahu aged about 39 6‘ years r631dent of Vlllage — Rakse ‘7: Present address : Vlllage Dhondha ‘ Tah—Chhuikhadan, Distt. ' Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONbENTS “ 1. Gauraha Yadav, son of Shri Milan. ; HON-APPLICANTS ‘ / ,Yadav resident of Adarsh Nagar , / ‘ Kawardha Tah and Dlstt Kawardha (Chhattlsgarh) x2. .Smt Harminder Kaur; Garcha and %‘ -Garcha Bus Service, GE. Road, R.T.C. Building, Raipur, C.G.. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA. No. 386 of 2004 Smt. Rukhmani Bai Versu§ REsPONQENTS Gauraha Yadav and others. NON-APPLICANTS MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLEs ACT 1988 DB:- HON’BLE SHRI LM. QUDDUSI & HON‘BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, JJ PRESENT:— ShFI R.N. Jha, counsel for the appellant. None for respondents No. 1 & 2. M V Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, counse! for respondent No. 3. V ORAL ORDER ( Passed on 16*“ of september, 2010 ) Per LM. Quddusi, J This appeal has been flied by the appefiant/claimant against the award dated 16-02-2004 passed by the Additionai’ Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Kharragarh, District: Rajnandgaon (for short ‘the Tribunai’) in Ciaim.Case No. 09/2000, dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the claim of the appellantrclaimant. 2. According to learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the appellant has given her address as R/o Village Rakse, which is in Kawardha District, buLmentioned her present address as resident of Dhondha, Tahsil Chhulkhadan, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh). 3. 'l The Tribunal concerned, framed four issues and decided all the four issues and also framed one additional issue regarding territorial jurisdiction and held that the Tribunal concerned does not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the ciaim and dismissed the claim petition as such. 4. it is well settled law that if any Court or Tribunal does not have territorial jurisdiction over a matter and the matter is pending before it, the same should be returned for proper presentation. But in the instant case, instead of returning the claim petition for proper presentation, the Tribunal concerned has committed error in deciding all the issues and holding that it has no territorial jurisdiction. When it had no territorial jurisdiction to ‘decide the claim petition, how the other issues which are related to the merits of the case could have been decided. Therefore, the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding the issues on merit. 5. ln view of the above, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned award dated 16-02-2004 (except the issue relating to territorial jurisdiction). The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal concerned, for the purpose of returning the claim. petition to the claimants for its proper presentation and to decide the matter afresh. 6. The records of the Tribunal concerned be sent back to it. x l Sd/- le es qd/' I.M.Quddusi ‘ , - L v NJ‘» Agrawa‘ .Judge 1 ’ J Judge