* THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO + C.M.A.No. 3842 of 2003 % Dated:05.03.2010 # K.Lakshmi Devamma and three others ..... APPELLANTS AND $ The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool .....RESPONDENT ! Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. K.Rathangapani Reddy ^ Counsel for the Respondent : Smt. W.S. Rajeshwari <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 3842 of 2003 Dated:05.03.2010 K.Lakshmi Devamma and three others ..... APPELLANTS AND The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool .....RESPONDENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.3842 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the order dated06.09.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.676 of 2000. 2. The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- on account of the death of one Suresh in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 16.10.1999 near Konduru Cheruvu on the road Pebber-Kollapur, Mahaboobnagar District. The first claimant is the wife and the claimants 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased. 3. The claim petition is filed against the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool showing as respondent. The learned Tribunal framed the issues, conducted an enquiry into the claim during the course of which the claimants examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5, whereas the respondent examined RW1. However, despite conducting an elaborate enquiry with a view to finally dispose of the claim petition, the tribunal ultimately returned the claim petition for presentation in the appropriate tribunal having jurisdiction on the ground that it has no territorial jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry into the claim. Consequently, the learned Tribunal declined to decide the remaining issues which relate to the liability of the Corporation to pay compensation and the quantum of compensation by the impugned order which is now under challenge in the present appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC. 5. Perusal of the order passed by the learned Tribunal obviously indicates non application of mind and its reluctance to decide the crucial issues involved in the claim petition. It appears from the order passed by the Tribunal that during the course of arguments a contention was advanced by the counsel for the respondent that the Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition on the ground that the place of accident and the place of residence of the claimants being within the local limits of jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahboobnagar, for which the learned counsel appearing for the claimants opposed on the ground that according to the averments of the claim petition, the petitioners as well as the respondent are residing within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the tribunal at Kurnool and therefore, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. 6. The learned Tribunal mentioned in its order that in Col No.2 of the proforma under Rule 455 of Motor Vehicle Rules given in the claim petition it is mentioned that the deceased and the claimants are residents of Pebber in Mehboobnagar District and therefore, the place of accident and place of residence of the claimants being within the limits of territorial jurisdiction of Mehboobnagar District, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Kurnool has no jurisdiction. But in para 8 of the claim petition, it is specifically pleaded that the accident took place at Konduru Village in Mehboobnagar District, the claimants and the respondent are residing in Kurnool Town within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and hence, the tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. The tribunal having referred the said averment made by the claimants in the claim petition observed that mere bald allegation in para 8 of the petition as stated above is not sufficient to prove the same and there is no proof of any kind for the said fact. Also observed that in fact in the deposition of PW.1 in the column relating to her descriptive particulars her residence is shown as Wanaparthy, whose jurisdiction is in the Mehboobnagar District. The Tribunal further expressed the view that in the evidence there was no whisper about the residence of the petitioners is Kurnool and also they have not produced any documentary evidence like household card, water bill, or residence certificate etc issued by the competent authority. Having made the said observations, the Tribunal held that it is clear that the claimants are residents of Wanaparthy, Mahboobnagar District and also the accident occurred in Mehboobnagar District. 7. The Tribunal also further held that the Chairman/Managing Director of A.P.S.R.T.C. is the right person to sue or to be sued in respect of the cases under Motor Vehicles Act and the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool is not a right person to sue or to be sued and thus the claim petition is bad for non joinder of necessary party. The tribunal also held that the claimants are not carrying on any business withinthe local limits of the jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool and ultimately expressed the view that the place of residence of the claimants is invented in para 8 of the petition to circumvent the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act obviously to confer jurisdiction on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool. 8. As to this, I wish to state that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in so far as they relate to payment of compensation to the victims are welfare provisions intended for the benefit of the victims and as such, they could be construed liberally in favour of the claimants. When the claimants specifically pleaded in the claim petition that they are residing in a particular place and the respondent was also the resident of the same place, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and it is quite inappropriate on the part of the claims tribunal to make a roving enquiry into the fact whether in fact the claimants are residents of that particular place or not. However, if the jurisdictional issue causes grave injustice and lot of inconvenience to the respondents the Tribunal may make a thorough enquiry and render a decision on point of jurisdiction. It has to be kept in mind that the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts have consistently taken the view that transfer of claim petition at the instance of the claimants can be granted liberally on the ground of convenience of the claimants provided such a transfer will not result in inconvenience to the respondents to defend the claim at the palace to which transfer is sought. 9. In the instant case, in fact the respondent-APSRTC in its counter had not taken any serious objection to the enquiry of the claim petition and accordingly the enquiry was proceeded with and the entire evidence in the claim petition was recorded by the learned Tribunal. Only for the sake of argument, the leaned counsel appearing for the APSRTC contended that the Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction. The learned Tribunal while making enquiry into the claim petition had not adverted to the said question at all. Only at the time of hearing the arguments indulged into the comparison of the contents of the averments made in para 8 of the claim petition relating to jurisdiction and the particulars mentioned in Col No.2 of the proforma under Rule 455 of Motor Vehicle Rules examined the issue in a hyper technical way and erroneously decided that the tribunal has no jurisdiction. In this context, I may point out that the learned Tribunal did not bring it to the notice of the claimants as to the ambiguity in the residence. If the Tribunal did so the claimants would have been in a position to explain the ambiguity. But there was no occasion for the claimants during the entire enquiry to put-forth their specific stand on the point of jurisdiction. After making an enquiry into the entire claim the learned Tribunal gave a finding that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim, even though no such issue was framed by the learned Tribunal. Since there was no issue on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction the appellants/claimants are not expected to place the entire material to satisfy the Tribunal on point of territorial jurisdiction. The learned Tribunal also held in its order that the Chairman, APSRTC is the right person to sue or to be sued in the cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, but the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool is not a right person to sue and to be sued and consequently gave a finding that the claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. It may be noticed in this context that the tribunal also not framed any issue as to whether the claim petition is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary party. 10. While making an enquiry into the claim of compensation under Motor Vehicles Act the Tribunal has to keep in mind that it is dealing with the rights of the claimants to claim compensation and the provisions have to be construed in such a manner enabling the claimants to get compensation if they have a right to claim under the Act and meticulous examination of jurisdictional issue only arises if making an enquiry into the claim petition at a particular place is contrary to the provisions of the Act and also when it causes undue hardship to the respondents to defend their case. In the instant case, APSRTC had been effectively represented by their counsel at Kurnool. It is not at all the grievance of the corporation that on account of the enquiry made into the claim at Kurnool it was subjected to any hardship or that it was in any manner deprived from effectively contesting the claim. Under the Motor Vehicles Act though in strict sense the claims tribunal is not a civil Court and it can evolve its summary procedure to adjudicate the claims, it has all tappings of the Civil Court and for all intents and purposes it is subordinate to the High Court. Since the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool is made respondent and the corporation was effectively represented by its counsel and since it is not at all the case of the corporation that on account of enquiry taking place at Kurnool it was deprived of any valuable defence or it was not effectively represented, the learned Tribunal ought not to have held that the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary party. Even if the Chairman/Managing Director, APSRTC, is the right person to be sued and as no such objection was taken by the corporation at the earliest and in view of the fact that due to such non-joinder of the party, it cannot be said that there is no effective and complete adjudication of the claim, and as such, the claim petition is not bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 11. Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act enables the claimants to make an application for compensation at their option; a) either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or, b) to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimants reside or carry on business or, c) within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. In the instant case, the appellants/claimants have categorically mentioned in the claim petition that they are residing at Kothapet, Kurnool Town and the office of the respondent viz. the Regional Manager, APSRTC is also located at Kurnool. The claim petition was kept pending for three years in Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool and the entire enquiry was completed. Therefore, there was absolutely no justification for the learned tribunal at that time for rendering final decision holding that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Rendering such a decision obviously will not serve any purpose except defeating the rights of the appellants/claimants. The approach of the learned Tribunal in passing such a order is highly reprehensible since on account of the wrong decision rendered by the learned tribunal below, the matter has been kept pending without any adjudication for the last 10 years which is a matter of serious concern. When the claimants as well as the respondent are residents of Kurnool, there is absolutely no justification for the tribunal to hold that it had no territorial jurisdiction, more particularly, when the office of the respondent is situate in Kurnool which fact is not at all in dispute. 12. For what all stated in the foregoing paragraphs this Court is of the considered view that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), Kurnool has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition filed by the appellants and holds as such in this appeal. 13. Therefore, the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(I Additional District Judge), Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.676 of 2000 is set aside and the same is remitted to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool which passed the impugned order to make an enquiry into the claim petition and render a decision on all issues except the question of jurisdiction which is decided by this Court. The Tribunal below is directed to dispose of the claim petition within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and case record and is also directed to send the report relating to the progress of the case once in every week to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 14. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is allowed with the directions aforementioned. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 05.03.2010 Note: L.R.copy to be marked. B/o Krb/kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.3842 OF 2003 Date:05.03.2010