IITTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHi-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.C.NO.T?-^- '2011 Oivision Benck 4> ^ FPELLANTS ^. ^ Birjaniya Uai widow of Late Dashrath/ ^ged about 43 years, Shama 1'^Cflviari, aged about 17 years, l^ Late Dashrath, minor through-^t^ral guardian - mother - Birjaniyct^ai. Both arei^esident of Vill. Marwahi, P.S. Marwahi, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) 4^ RESPONDENTS ^..'f/y ^^/ /^./^ VERSUS .. Ganga Prc?s?d aged about 34 years son of ShwiGarrup Prasad, R/o Vill. Kutin D&bai, Rajnagar Colony, Rajnagar. :0istt. Anuppur (MP) (Owner 'or Pick Up No. MP 18H/4534), Santosh K<^iar aged about 30 years son of Shri Babu Lal, R/o Vill. Pakariya, P.S. Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) (Driver of Pick Up No. MP ISH/4534^. -I. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Cc. Limjted, Ambikapur, through ths Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur Distt. Bilcii'^ur fCG) flnsurer of Pick UD No. MP 18H/4534). MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT.1988 HI^-LCOVKTjO^CHH^TTIS^RH AT BIL^SPUft HON'BLE MR. I.M.QU&DUSI & HON'BLE MR.B^LAM MINH^JUDDIN, JJ AppeSlants Reseondents M.A. [cl N0.717/11 Birjaniya Bai <& others Vs Ganga Prasad d others Present: Mr. B. Kashyap/ Advocate for the appellants. None for respondents No.l though served. Mr. S/S. Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent No.3. Mr. S,R* Sinha, Advocate for the respondent Nos.l to 5 ORDER (Orai) (1st December. 2011) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. This appea! has been fiied by the appeilants against the award dated 28,09.2010 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribuna! (FTC), Pendra ftoad, District Bilaspur (for short 'the Cfaims Tribunal') in Ciaim Case No.48/09. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the ciaimants, who are widow and daughter of deceased Dashrath, have filed a ctaim application before the Ciaims Tribunai seeking compensation to the tune of fts.42,27,000/- for the death of said Dashrath in a motor accldent which took piace on 22.6<2009, when the motorcycle of the decea^d, in which he was aoina to Viilage Dol from Viilage Bijuriya, was dashed by the pick-up van bearing registration number MP18-H-4534, due to rash and negligent driving by its -'driver. The ciaimants claimed compensation on the ground that they were dependent on the deceased, who was the sofe earning member Jn the family, and due to his death, they have suffered ioss of income. 4. The Claims Tribunaf, after hearing the parties in the matter dismissed the claim on the ground that the ciaimonts have failed to prove the n ^ involvement of the offending vehicte in the accident as also on the ground of jurisdiction, 5* We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as also records of the Claims Tribunai. 6, With regard to the Jurisdiction of the Ciaims Tribunai, it is necessary to peruse Section 166 (2) of the Act, 1988 which provides as under:- (2) Every appiication under sub-section (1) ^haii be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Ciaims Ti"iibunal havirig Jurjsdiction over the area m which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Trsbunal withsn the / toca! limits of whose jurisdiction the ciaimant resides or carries on business or within the loca! Ilmits of whose jurisdiction the defendanf resides, and shali be in such form and contain such particuiars as may be prescribed." 7. In the matter of Mantoo Sartor vs. Orlental Insyrance Co, Ltd, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 244 where the claimant, a seasonai migrant bbourer working in Nainital, Uttranchal, who was trave!ling in a bus of Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, insured with compcxny having branch at Nainital, which met with an accident in Faridpur, U.P, with truck registered at Faridabad, filed a claim apptication at Tribunai at Nainital. The Tribunal, inter alia, on the premise that the jurisdiction conferred on it, having regard to sub-section (2) of Section 166 of the Act, is wide and the Insurance Company having a branch office at Nainitai, it has territorial jurisdiction to determine the claim petition and accordingfy passed the award. The award of the Tribunat was chailenged by the respondent Insurance Company before the High Court, which was set aside by the High Court on the ground that the Tribuna! had no territoria! jurisdiction to dispose of the matter. The ciaimant approached the Hon'bie Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court by observing thus^ "12.A claimant has a wsde option< Residence of the ctaimant also determines jurisdiction of the Tribunal. VVhGt wouid be a residence of a person would, however, depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. 15, No doubt the Tribunai must exercise Jurisdiction hoving regard to the ingredients laid down under sub-sectiors (2) of a !/ Section 166 of the Act, We are not unmindful of the fact that in terms of Section 169 of the Act, the Tribunai, subject to any rules, may foiiow a summary procedure and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure under the Act have a iimited application but in terms of the rules "save and except" any specific provision made in that behalf, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure wouid appiy. Even otherwise the principies bid down in the Code of Civil Procedure may be he!d to be appLJicable in a case of this nature. 20. A distinction, however, must be made between a Jurisdiction with regard to the subject-matter of the suit and that of territoriai and pecuniary Jurisdiction. Whereas in the falling wsthin the former category the judgment would be a , nullity, in the iatter it would not be. It is not a case where the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in reiation to the subject- matter of claim* As a matter of fact the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. If the Tribuna! had the Jurisdiction to entertain a ciaim petition under the Motor Vehictes Act, in our opinion, the court should not have, in the absence of any finding of sufferance of any prejudice on the part of the first respondent, entertained the appea!," 8. In the instant case, the Cbims Tribunal has dismissed the claim Gpplication mainly on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim application as the ciaimants have failed to establish that they are resident of the area faliing within the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunai. However, from the description of respondent No.2-driver of offending yehicle, it is evident that he is resident of "Vjlfage Pakirya, Police Station Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C6y\ Even in the driving iicence (Ex.D-1) issued to him by the RTO, Biiaspur, his address has been mentioned as "Village Pakirya, Police Station Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C6)". The appeiiGnt-claimants have aiso given their address as "VidQg® MGruydhi, PoSice Station Pendra, Distnet Bllaspur (C^)". Further, the appelbnt NoJ has stated on oath that she is residing in her maternal house i<e. Vitiage Marwahi, District Biiaspur (CS)* 9. In view of above, we are of the opinion that dismissal of the claim ' petition by the Claims Tribunal on the ground of Jurisdiction is not proper as in the present case the Claims Tribunal at Pendra ftoad, - District Bilaspur (CS) is only having jurisdiction to try and entertain the claim petition of the claimants, i, Sm^ ^ I s,3y/ lO.With regard to finding of the Claims Tribunal that the claimants faiied to prove involvement of the vehicle-in-question in the accldent is concerned, on perusa! of the record we found that the first information report was not lodged by any of the family members or eyewitness of the accident rather one Shankar Dhobi, Peon in Centrai Hospital, Aamakherwa, P.S. Manendragarh has informed the police, therefore, it was not possible for him to give particutars of the pick-up yan. However, during the police Investigation it has come that offending vehicie was a pick-up van bearing registration number MP18" H-4534 and in this situation, the Ciaims Tribunal should have perused the police papers including the charge sheet fited under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. but the same has not been done in the present case. The Claims Tribunal should have kept in mind that rightfui claim the claimants should not be denied. Therefore, we feel that the finding given by the Chims Tribunal on this issue was without considering the resuit of police investigation and as such, the same is liable to be set aside< 11. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside th©impu9ned award along with the findings given on the issues and remit the matter back to the Ciaims Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh in accordance with law, The parties shall be entitled to amend the pleadings or file documents or verify the documents already filed. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 16 JanuGr'y. 2012. The Registry is directed to transmit the record of the Claims Tribunal without further delay. ftoshan/- 12. .Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- G. Minhajuddin Judge / ^ h-—