1 ao800-2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 800 OF 2009 IN MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM NO. 7 OF 2003 Mr.Arvindbhai Kanji Chauhan & Ors. ...Appellants vs. Upendrasingh Bhikhubhai Zala & Anr. ...Respondents Ms.Pramila S. Bhaingade i/b. Mr.N. Janardhanan for the Appellants. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : OCTOBER 11, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard learned Counsel for the original petitioners who are the appellants before this Court. None for the respondents though served. 2 To state in brief, the petitioners had filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.7/2003 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Diu seeking compensation for the death of one Jigneshbhai who 2 ao800-2009 was son of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and husband of petitioner no.3. He had died in motor accident at Una, District Junagadh of Gujarat. According to the petitioners, they are residents of Bhoiwada, Diu. The respondent no.1, the owner of the truck did not appear to contest the petition. Respondent no.2 - the Insurance Company contested the petition. Besides other defences taken by the respondent no.2, it was pleaded that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Diu, has no jurisdiction as the accident has taken place in District Junaghad and the deceased was also shown to be resident of Una. The Tribunal framed issues and called upon the parties to lead evidence. The evidence was led by the parties. The claims Tribunal by the impugned order dated 21st April, 2009 dismissed the petition holding that the petitioners had failed to prove though they were residents of Diu and therefore, the Claims Tribunal, Diu has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. That order is challenged in the present appeal. 3 ao800-2009 3 The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Tribunal had failed to appreciate evidence properly and came to wrong conclusion that the petitioners were not residents of Diu. He contended that the same Tribunal had granted compensation on the principle of no fault under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act by order dated 7th April, 2005 and the order was never challenged by the Insurance Company. It was also contended that the Claims Tribunal should not have dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction after keeping the matter pending for six years before it. 4 On Perusal of the record and the evidence led by the petitioners before the Tribunal, it appears that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 had examined themselves. Besides that, they had examined two more persons. Both the petitioners deposed that they were residing at Bhoiwada in Diu for last 5 to 6 years but they did not have any Ration Card or Identity 4 ao800-2009 Card by Election Commission. It was stated that the electric meter was in the name of the landlord. The evidence of petitioner nos.1 and 2 was supported by the evidence of CW 3 Lalitchandra Joshi, who deposed that the petitioner no.1 was working as a labourer in construction and his wife - petitioner no.2 was working as maidservant. She was also working at the house of said Lalitchandra Joshi as a maidservant. He also deposed that they were residing at Bhoiwada in Diu. Though he was cross-examined at length on behalf of respondent no.2 - Insurance Company, he could not be shattered. This was evidence of an independent witness, supporting the claim of the petitioners that they were residing at Diu. The learned Tribunal rejected the petition only on the ground that the petitioners had failed to produce the Ration Card or Election Card to prove that they were residing at Diu. It is material to note that on behalf of respondent no.2  Insurance company, no evidence was placed on record to show that the petitioners were actually residing at Una and not at 5 ao800-2009 Diu. It is true that in the post mortem report, deceased was shown to be resident of Una. Evidence of CW 4 Jayeshkumar Mori shows that the deceased was in his service at Raghuvir Service Station at Una as Mechanic and he had died in a motor accident. As he was in service at Una, in the post mortem report, he was shown to be resident of Una. In fact, place of residence of the deceased was not relevant for the purpose of deciding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended in 1994, clearly provides that 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 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 defendants resides. In the present case, the petitioners clearly deposed that they were residing at Diu and this was supported by the evidence of CW 3 Lalitchandra 6 ao800-2009 Joshi, a resident of Diu, at whose house the petitioner no.2 was serving as maidservant. Taking into consideration the material on record, there were no justification to reject the oral evidence led by the petitioners that they are residents of Diu. They come from the poor strata of the society and petitioner no.1 is the labourer working in construction industry and petitioner no.2 is maidservant at the houses of the different persons. As explained in the evidence it is difficult for them to secure the documentary evidence about their residence. Therefore, their oral evidence and particularly, evidence of CW 3 Lalitchandra Joshi about their residence at Diu should not have been rejected. 5 In view of the facts and circumstances noted above, I find that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in holding that the Claims Tribunal, Diu, had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 7 ao800-2009 6 For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. The claim Petition No.7/2003 is hereby remanded back to the Claims Tribunal, Diu, for decision on its merits. (J.H. BHATIA, J.)