IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Chapter VIII, Rule 32(2) (b) Description of case Date of decision: 03.01.2008 Appeal From Order No. 324 of 2006 A.F.R. (Approved for Reporting) Not approved for Reporting 1 (Initial of Judge) Date: 03.01.2008 Note: Bench Reader will attach this at the top of first page of the judgment when it is put up before the judge for signature. Judgment Reserved IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 324 of 2006 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Haldwani (Nainital) Through its Division Manager Divisional Officer, Nainital Road Haldwani, District Nainital. ………Appellant Versus 1. Smt. Shakeela Begum W/o Late Munney Khan 2. Haneef Khan Minor, S/o Late Shri Munney Khan 3. Naseem Khan, Minor S/o Late Shri Munney Khan. 4. Km. Samina, Minor W/o Late Shri Muneey Khan 5. Haseeb Khan, Minor S/o Late Shri Munney Khan Respondents No. 2 to 5, are minors through their next friend and natural guardian and mother Smt. Shakeela Begum (Respondent No. 1). All R/o Nai Basti, Town, Haldwani District Nainital. 6. M/s Delhi Agro Chemical Agency, 103 Gupta Tower, Azadput, Delhi 33, owner of truck No. HR 38/4888. …………Respondents Shri P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri D.S. Patni and Shri Manish Dalakoti, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5. None for respondent No. 6. Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Per:-Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the award dated 24.03.2006, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/III Fast Track Court, Nainital, whereby in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 297 of 2004, the said tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,13,000/- as amount of compensation in favour of the claimants (present respondents No. 1 to 5). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 to 5, sent a claim petition to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nainital, which was received by said tribunal on 18.12.2004, with the particulars that on 28.12.1999, Muneey Khan (husband of present respondent No. 1 and father) or respondents No. 2 to 5) was going on a truck bearing registration No. UP 27-D-9629 from Pilibhit to Ghaziabad. When it reached near Village Joya (District J.P. Nagar, Uttar Pradesh), the truck stopped due to technical fault, and suddenly a tanker bearing registration No. HR 38/4888, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, dashed, and Munney Khan received injuries and died on the spot. A First Information Report of the accident was lodged with Police Station Didoli (District J.P. Nagar U.P.), which was registered as crime No. 787 of 1999, relating to offences punishable under Sections 279, 304 I.P.C. It is alleged in the claim petition that deceased was a contractor, who used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month. It is further alleged in the claim petition that the claimants (present respondents No. 1 to 5) were dependents on him. Deceased was aged 28 years. A total sum of Rs. 28,25,000/- was claimed, as amount of compensation by the claimants. 4. Opposite party No. 1 (M/S Delhi Agro Chemical Agency-present respondent No. 6) did not contest the claim petition. However, the New India Assurance Company Ltd (present appellant) who was opposite party No. 2 in the claim petition, contested the same, and filed its written statement. Denying the factum of accident, it is stated in the written statement that the petition is collusive one. The terms of the policy are violated. Apart from this, a specific plea was taken by contesting respondent (present appellant) that Mother Accident Claims Tribunal, at Nainital, had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the claim petition. 5. As many as seven issues were framed by the tribunal and issue No. 7, reads as under:- 7. Whether the tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the case? 6. The tribunal after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, decided all the issue in favour of the claimants and allowed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 7,13,000/- as amount of compensation. Aggrieved by said award dated 24.03.2006, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 297 of 2004, by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/III Fast Track Court, Nainital, this appeal is preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the tribunal at Nainital, had no territorial jurisdiction to decide the claim petition. In this connection, it is further contended on behalf of the appellant that earlier some claimants filed claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pilibhit, which they got dismissed and filed this claim petition, at Nainital. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant that the addresses shown by the claimants in the subsequent claim petition are false and the entire proceedings are based on fraud committed on the tribunal by concealing the material facts. 4. Before further discussions, it is pertinent to mention here the relevant provision of law, applicable to this case. Sub-section (2) of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, under which the claim petition is moved, reads as under:- “(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims 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 resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed: Provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.” 5. The above provision makes it clear that a claim petition can be filed by the claimants either at the place where the accident had occurred or where the claimants themselves were residing/or carrying on business, or where the defendants were residing. Admittedly, accident had taken place in District J.P. Nagar, in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The defendants M/s Delhi Agro Chemical Agency, bears its address of Delhi. The New India Assurance Company (present appellant) who is impleaded as opposite part No. 2 in the claim petition had its registered office in Mumbai but it was impleaded through its Divisional Manager, at Haldwani (District Nainital), while said branch of the appellant had nothing to do with the policy by which the vehicle in question was ensured. We have gone through the record of the tribunal and found that in respect of the same accident by the same claimants showing their address as “R/o Village Sardar Nagar, Tehsil and District Pilibhit” filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 65 of 2000, before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Pilibhit, U.P. In said petition, the appellant’s address was shown as “New India Assurance Company, having its registered office in Mumbai through its Branch Manager, Branch Office A-2/8 Gupta Tower, Azadpur, Delhi 33”. From where the policy was issued in respect of the vehicle in question. Copy of order sheet of said claim petition at Pilibhit, shows that it was filed in the year 2000 and was dismissed on 11.02.2003. Thereafter, a restoration application was moved, which was registered as Misc. No. 18 of 2003, and the same was dismissed on 31.03.2005. Strangely name of counsel at Pilibhit and at Nainital is also same i.e. Shri Shyam Awasthi, Advocate. Having gone through the record of the case and the papers filed with the affidavit and memorandum of appeal, we are satisfied that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nainital, has committed grave and manifest error of law in exercising jurisdiction in the matter in the above circumstances of the case. The tribunal at Nainital, had no jurisdiction to decide the claim petition as neither the claimants belong to District of Nainital, nor the accident had taken place in that district nor the defendants had their residence or their business there. The claimants appear to have mentioned name of Branch of appellant Company of Haldwani in the present petition in question, only to project that the tribunal at Nainital, had the jurisdiction while actually no policy had ever been issued by said branch. 6. We express anguish and displeasure at the manner the claimants and counsel have moved the tribunal at Nainital to decide the claim petition. This Court in United India Insurance Company Vs. Smt. Bholi Begum and others 2007 (1) U.D. Pg. 22, has earlier held that in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 166, the tribunal having no territorial jurisdiction over the residents of the claimants or the place where the accident occurred, or the place where the defendants reside, cannot decide a claim petition filed before it. 7. For the reasons, as discussed above, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 24.03.2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Fast Track Court, Nainital, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 297 of 2004, is hereby set aside. The amount, if any, deposited before the tribunal/or paid to the claimants shall be refunded by them to the appellant. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 03.01.2008 03.01.2008 Sweta