- /- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH-1 il !£|il^@SS^ MISC.APPEAL N0. fU^ OF 2QQ5 APPELLANTS MMANTS _, ^ ^{ '^, -^2 1. Smt. Bindu Devi, Wife of Late Shri Sachidanand Jha, aged about 48 years; 2. Roshan Anand Jha, Son of Late Shri Sachidanand Jha, aged about 22 years; 3. Deepak Jha Son of Late Shri Sachidanand Jha, aged about 20 years; All Resident of Bazarpara, Police Station and Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS ^^amavtar Agrawal and Construction Company Bilaspur, .^, Proprietor Ramavtar Agrawal, Resident of Ring Road, VaiShali Nagar, District Bilaspur (C.G.). ^^' MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 ^' .^y <y RE^PONDENT ^ AMQUNT CLAIM BEFORE LEARNED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE LEARNED CLAIMS TRIBUNAL -Rs. 25,000,00/- NIL AMOUNT CLAIM BEFORETHIS HON'BLE ^^" COURT , — Rs. 25,000,00/- v c ~- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 1463/2005 APPBLLANTS Smt. Bindu Devi and others Versus RESPONDENTS Ramawtar Agrawal Consti-uction Company and DB:- HON»BLESHRII.M. OUDDUSI & HON»BLESHM N.K. AGARWAL, JJ PRESENT:- Shri Sushil Dubey, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ankit Singhal, Advocate for respondent. ORAL ORDER (6-9-2010) Per I.M. Quddusi, J 1. This appeal has been filed against the iinpugned order dated 20-9-2005 passed by the IIIrd Motor Acciderit Claims Tribunal (FTC), Ambikapur, Sarguja in Claim Case No. 14/2005. 2. In fact, at the first instance, the appellant/claimant had filed a claim petition at the place of his residence i.e. at Surajpur but the same was withdrawn with liberty to flle a fresh claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor VehiclesAct, 1988. That claim petition was retumed to the appellant. Thereafter, he filed the sam.e before the M.A.C,T., Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja. Learned M.A.C.T. Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja transferred the claim petition on 12-4-2005 to IIIrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Ambikapur where the same was registered as Claim Case No. 14/2005. Leamed IIIrd M.A.C.T., Ambikapur by impugnedorder dated 20-9-2005 dismissed the claim petition on two grounds that the claimant has not made compliance of Rule 220 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 and also that it was not having c. jurisdiction in view of the provision of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. Leamed counsel for the appellant submits that once the learned Tribunal has held thaf it has no jurisdiction, it should not have dismissed the claim petition, therefore, the impugned order is , not sustainable. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the claimant has not come with clean hands, because he withdrew the earlier application which was filed before M.A.C.T., Surajpur, then it was filed before the M.A.C.T, Ambikapur, Sarguja. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In our opinion, once the IIIrd M.A.C.T., Ambikapur had held that it was not having jurisdiction in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to entertain the claim petition, it should not have dismissed the claim petition on the ground of non-compliance of Rule 220 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988. Further, if the Tribunal was not having jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition, the same should have been referred to the District Judge for transferring the same to the •^z" . M.A.C.T., having jurisdiction, as the claimant was residing in the same district and in fact, he had rightly presented the claim petition before the M.A.C.T. Surajpur earlier but instead of doing so, the M.A.C.T., Ambikapur has dismissed the claim petition making an award which was beyond its competence and thus it has erred in law in exceeding its jurisdiction. 7. So far as the contention of the leamed counsel for the respondent that the appellant has not come with clean ^^i^.:f^ ^'v''.^&. '"^. ,r^—-^ ^^ y i... ....l... 'l hands is concerned, on perusal of the record, we see that the claim petition was withdrawn earlier and it was returned to the claimant. Thereafter, the same claim petition was filed before the M.A.C.T., Ambikapur, Sarguja. The M.A.C.T., Ambikapur, Sarguja transferred the claim petition to the IIIrd Additional M.A.C.T., Ambikapur but the same should have been transferred to the Additional M.A.C.T., Surajpur. This is not the case that the claimant had wrongly filed the claim petition before the IIIrd Additional M.A.C.T. Ambikapur. Therefore, if the claim petition was wrongly transferred to the Court of IIIrd M.A.C.T., Ambikapur, the proper course which was to be adopted by it was to send the record of the claim petition to the District Judge/M.A.C.T., Ambikapur Sarguja with the note that it was not having jurisdiction and therefore the matter is liable to be transferred to appropriate Court(Surajpur). 8. In view of above, we partly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 20-9-2005 and the matter is remitted to the M.A.C.T. Sarguja (Ambikapur) to transfer the matter to the appropriate M.A.C.T. having territorial jurisdiction for disposal of the case, on its own merits in accordance with law. 9. The Registry is directed to send back the record, requisitioned from the Tribunal, forthwith. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- 1M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge v >