IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 86 of 2008 Smt. Jogindri Devi & others … Appellants Vs U.P.S.R.T.C. & another … Respondents Sri Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 13.02.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IInd Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 295 of 2005, Smt. Jogindri Devi & others Vs U.P.S.R.T.C. & another whereby the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition of the appellants/claimants on the ground of jurisdiction. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased was employed as driver in bus No. UA04/7697. On 02.11.2003, the deceased – Jaipal Singh was driving the bus No. UA04/7697, on the left side of the road. At about 04:30 a.m., when the said bus reached near Matwali Bridge, another bus bearing registration No. UP25G/9151 was coming from the opposite direction, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner, the bus driver of UP25G/9151 lost control on his bus and brought his bus on the wrong side of the road and dashed to the bus of the deceased in which, deceased died on the spot. According to the claim petition, the deceased was 32 years of age and used to earn Rs. 7,000/- per month as salary. The claimants/appellants are the legal representative of the 2 deceased. Hence, an amount of Rs. 23,20,000/- was claimed by the claimants as compensation. 3. Thereafter notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 – U.P.S.R.T.C. and Balbir Singh contested the claim petition by filing their joint written statement before the Tribunal on the ground that the accident took place due to negligence of the deceased himself. Therefore, the applicants/opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition of the claimants/appellants on the ground of jurisdiction vide judgment and order dated 13.02.2008. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal before this Court. 6. Heard Sri Pawan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has submitted before the Court that the short controversy in this case is that the Tribunal has not considered this aspect that the claimants are residing at Dehradun. In order to support 3 his version he has relied upon the provision of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act as well as statement of the claimants. 8. On the other hand, Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Tribunal after considering the documents available on record as well as considering the provision of Section 166(2) rightly held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the claim petition. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record. In view of the provision of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it appears that three conditions are necessary. Firstly, the claimant should be the resident of the area in which the Tribunal is situated having jurisdiction to entertain the petition; secondly, the accident should occurred over the area with which the Tribunal is having the jurisdiction to try the claim petition and thirdly, the defendant should reside or carry a business within the local limits of the area in which the Tribunal having jurisdiction to deal with the claim petition. As far as the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, the Tribunal has categorically stated the claimants could not produce any evidence in support of their residence proof, which may show that they are residing at Dehradun. Therefore, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant has no force. The Tribunal has rightly held that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter as the claimants are resident of Village Murliwala, Bijnor, U.P. The driver of another bus – Sri Virpal Singh is also a resident of Ruhelkhand, Uttarpradesh and the bus was running under the Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation. It is also not disputed that accident in this case took place at Matwali Bridge, Moradabad (U.P.). As I have already discussed above, 4 that the claimants have not produced any evidence before the Tribunal regarding their address at Uttarkahand, therefore, all the aforesaid material available on record clearly indicates that the claim Tribunal at Dehradun had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition in any manner, in view of the provision of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition of the appellants/claimants on the ground of jurisdiction. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 19.06.2009 ASWAL