^-<-*'-.'v\--^.vv 's IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.fQ N0.^7/2011 APPLICANTS, y:^.^ RESPONDENTS: ^' 1 - Tiharo bai, w/o Late Ramdev aged about 37 year Parvatiya w/o late chamaru Ram aged about 65 years Pradip lakda sRamdevRam aged about 17 Years. Arvind lakda s/o late Ram dev Ram about 15 years Appeltant no 3 to 4 mother of netural gaurdian smt.tiharo bai ,w/o late Ramdev Ram,AII R/o village bakmer ,tah •Ambikapur distt. Sarguja(c.g.) hal mukam s.i. 245 c.s£b..colony Korba(purwa) tah. & distt. Korba (c.g.). •' '-ft VERSUS i»t^ksud ahmad,s/Q^ahmad aged about "So}^^6 Rudapur malkahar, di^lahabad (utter' Pradesh) DRIVER 2 Sebi Ahma s/o AShafak Ahmad ,R/o Rudapur malkahar Distt. Alahabad.(utter Pradesh) OWNER A- ^3 Sir mandal manager, The Oriental Insurance * Co. Ltd Mandal office gitanjali bhavan old bus staind korba, tah. Distt .korba (c.g.) INSURER Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act. 1988 ^^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS^RH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUDDUSI A HON'BLE MR. 6. MINHAJUDDIN. JJ. M.^No.667/2011 -.^^- .^' ADpellants 'Respondents Vs Smt»Tiharo Bai and onother Maksud Ahmad and others Present: Mr. AL. Singraul, Advocate for the appeilants. Mr- Roton Pusty, counsei for respondent No.3. ORDER rOran (23-11-2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; Heard. 2, The appellant-ciainnants have fi!ed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act") against 1+ie impugned order dated 26.03.2011 passed in Claim Case No.70/2009 whereby the iearned Mptor Accident CIoims Tribunal, Korba (for short lthe Cbirps Tribunar) has dismissed the ciaim applicationof the appelbnts. 3, Facts of the case, In brief, cccording to the version of cbimants ^ are that on 24.05<2009 deceased Ramdeo Rcm alongwith his wife Tiharo Bai (CIaimant/Appeliant No.l) had gone to the ptace of their re!atives Raja Kcte! and Raj Prcsad Uraon. When Ram beo aiongwith his wife was returning by his Motorcycle bearing \ ^— ^"y- Regn.no. C.&15/CC-5951. at about 13.30 hours, a Truck bearing registration No. U<P, 70 A.T./5545 which was being driyen by non- applicant Maksud Ahmad in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle frorp opposlte direction, due to which, Ramdeo sustained grievous injuries on his head, legs/hand and other parts of the body. His wife a!so sustdned injuries in the said accident* ' Ram beo was immediately brought to the District Hospital, Ambikapur, ESistrict Sarguja where during the course of treatment he died on the same doy at about4.25 p.m- The deceased was aged about 40 years. He was working as ©eneralMajdoor in Sourth Eastern Coal Fields Limited, Bhatgoon, Vishrompur, bistrict Sarguja and was drawing a monthly saiary of fts.25,000/- per month. The Claimants being dependents/legal representatives of the deceased haye filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the award of totol compensation of Ks.70,60,000/- on yarious heads. . 4. The Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition only on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction- 5, We haye heard learned counsel for the parties and haye also gone through the records of the Claims Tribunal. 6. A Perusal of 1+ie impugned order passed by the Tribunal shows that though the Tribunai has not frarrsed any issue regarding •^^ ^ /" jurisdiction but dismissed the claim petition only on the ground of lock of territorial jurisdictlon holding 1+iat the appellants haye not filed any documentary evidence regarding their residence. From the description gsven in the cause title of claim application, it is eyident that the appellc^ts-claimants have giyen their particulars alongwith address as under: 1. Tihora Bai, wife of late ftamdeo Ram aged about 37 years 2. Parytiya, wife of late Chamru ftam, oged about 65 years, 3. Pradeep Lakda, son of tate Ramdeo ftam/ aged about 17 years 4. Aryind Lakda, son of hte Ramdeo Ram, aged about 15 years, Respondents 3 & 4 are represented through mother and natural guardian Smt- Tihora Bai, w/o tote Ramdeo Ram All residents of village Bakmer, Tahsil Ambikapur^ District Sargujo (C.G\ presently residirg at village S.E. 245. C.S.E.B. Colony, Korba (East) Tahsil and District Korba (C.G.). The detasls of respondents 1 (driyer), respondent no> 2(owner) and respondent no3 (insurer) is also furnished in the cause tstle of the claim petition as under: 1, Maksud Ahmad, Son of Honif Ahmad, aged about 30 y@ars, resident of Rudapur. €) ^y ^^ Malkahar, Dist. Allahabad. Uttar Prodesh (Vehicle briver) 2. Sebi Ahmad, son of Asfaque Ahmad, resident of Rudapur. ttalkahar, Distric)- ^llahabad. Utl-ar Pradesh (Owner) 3, Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company limited, Divisional Office^ ©eetQnjali Bhawan. Purana Bustand. Korba, Tahsil and District Korba (C.^. 8. Section 166 (2) of the Act, 1988 reads as under:- "166. Applicatian far compensation.— "(2) Eyery application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of 1+ie claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which -the accident occurred, or to the Claims ^ TribunoJ 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." 9. The said Act is a special statute. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal haying regard to the terminologies used therein must be he!d to l be wider than the civil court. A bare reading of the aboye provisions would show that it has nowhere mentioned that the claim petition should be filed only fcefore the Claims Tribunal having the jurisdiction over the area in which the accident took ^^>' place. Options are open to the claimant(s) to file opplication either before the Cldms 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 (the Insurance Company or the owner <& driver, as the case may be) resides or before the Cbims Tribund hoving jurisdiction over the area in 'which the accident took place. The words lresides' ond 'carries on the business' denote that ot the time of filing claim petition before the Claims Tribunal the claimant should be the resident of an area falling within its local jurisdiction. In other words, the expression 'resides' denotes the present address and not the past address of the claimant Thus, in our opinion, dismissal of the ciaim petition by the Claims Tribunal on the ground of lack of territoriai jurisdiction is not proper. 10. A claimant has wide option. Residence of the claimant also determines jurisdiction of the Tribunal. What would be a residence of a person would, howeyer, depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case Jn view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Mantffo Sarkar -^- Oriental Insurance Compony Umited and ethers (2009) 2 SCC 244 wherein it has been held in Paragraphs 16, 17 & 20 as under: "16. We say so because ordinarily an appellate court sho.Il not, haying regard to the provisions contained m sub- section (1) of Section 21 of the Code of Ciyil Procedure. entertain an appeal o.n the ground of lack of territorial ^ ^" .(/^. jurisdiction on the part of 1+ie court below unless he has been prejudiced thereby. Other respondents did not raise any question of jurisdiction, Although one witness each had been examsned on behalf of the truck owner and owner of the bus, neither a question of lack of territorial jurisdiction was raised nor the question of any prejudice had been argued. It is only the first respondent who raised the question of territorial jurisdiction. Howeyer, no prejudice was caused to the appellant by the claim petition being tried by MACT at Nainital. 17. The liability of the Insurance Company arises for the purpose of reimbursement of the amount of compensation found to be poyable^ by Ihe owner of the yehicle insured. It is only in e^ceptional cases and as provided for under S&ction 170 of the Act, -tiie Insurance Company ccin defend a claim petition, Only on limited grounds it may be permitted to question the quantum of compensation. 20. A distinction, howeyer, must be made between a jurisdiction with r-egard to the subject-matter of the suit and 1+iat of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. Whereas ?n the cose falling wil+iin the former category the judgment would be a nullity, in the latter it would not be. It is not a case where the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in relation to the subject matter of claim. As a maHer of fact the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. If the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, in our opinion, the Court should not have, in the ab^nce of any findin9 of sufferance of any prejudice on the part of the first respondent, entertained the dppeal." ^^ 11, In view of the above discussion, we allow this appeal, set aside the Impugned order doted 26.03.2011 and remit the matter back to the Claims Tribunal for decidin9 the claim petition afresh on merits. The parties shall be entitled to amend the pleadings or file documents or verify the documents already filed, ^12< 'The Claims Tribunal is expected to decide the matter as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 13. The parties are directed to dppear before the Claims TribunaE concerned on 05th Januarv. 2012. The ftegistry is directed to send back the records of the Tribunal without further delay. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, No order as to costs. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge Rao