IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. NO.606 of 2006 Vijay Shankar and another .. Appellant. Versus M/s Siyalkot Transport Rampur Road, Moradabad and another .. Respondents. Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. Prabhat Pandey, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. None has appeared for respondent No.1. Dated: 23-7-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 26-8-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, U.S. Nagar, in MACP No. 155/2005. 2- Brief facts of the case are that the claimants/appellants preferred a claim petition for the death of Ashok Kumar, who had died in a motor accident occurred on 1.2.2005 when he was coming Thakurdwara from Moradabad sitting in Bus No. U.P. 14-Q-5169. According to the petition the driver of the said bus was driving it in a rash and negligent manner and it hit the bus with a buggy near Kisan Inter College Jahangirpur. The deceased sustained serious injuries and died in District Hospital, Moradabad on 26.6.2005. He was 34 years of age and was employed as Manager in Private Bus Operators Union Thakurdwara. His monthly salary was Rs. 5,500/- and he was also getting commission of Rs. 2,000/-. Thereforen the claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as compensation. 2 3- The Opposite Party No.1, bus owner filed his written statement and alleged that the bus was insured with National Insurance Company and its driver was having valid driving license, therefore, the compensation, if any, shall be payable by the insurance company. 4- The opposite party No.2 the National Insurance Company also contested the petition and alleged that the information of the accident was not given to the insurer. The driver was driving the vehicle in an unauthorized manner. Plea of jurisdiction was also taken. 5- The learned Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties framed relevant issues in the petition. 6- Thereafter parties adduced evidence in support of their case. The Tribunal after having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, dismissed the petition holding that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the case. 7- Feeling aggrieved the claimants have preferred this appeal before this Court. 8- I have heard the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants and learned counsel for the respondent, Insurance Company and perused the material. 9- The learned Tribunal on issue No.1 pertaining to rash and negligence on the part of bus driver, held that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligence of the bus driver. P.W.2, Radhey Shyam, an eye witness of the accident, has deposed that the driver 3 of the offending bus hit the bus with a buggy in a rash and negligent manner. Against the eyewitness account, nothing contrary has been brought on record from the side of opposite parties. I do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal, so far as the rash and negligence on the part of bus driver is concerned. However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the point of jurisdiction. 10- The short point involved in this case is as to whether the claim Tribunal had jurisdiction to try this case or not?. 11- The Tribunal has discussed this point while deciding issue No.2. I find myself in total agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal that the Tribunal at Udham Singh Nagar has no jurisdiction to try the aforesaid case. The statement of P.W.1, Vijay Shankar Sharma and P.W.2, Radhey Shyam clearly reveal that the claimants are not the residents of Udham Singh Nagar. In the cross examination these witnesses have clearly deposed that the claimants or the deceased did not reside at Kashipur. In fact both the witnesses have admitted that the claimants and the deceased resided in Thakurdwara, District Moradabad. Further it is also clear from the evidence available on record that neither the accident took place within the jurisdiction of District Udham Singh Nagar, nor the opposite parties, i.e. owner and insurer of the offending vehicle reside within the jurisdiction of District Udham Singh Nagar. The record further reveals that the owner of the offending bus reside in District Moradabad as well as the offending vehicle has been insured by the Insurance Company having its registered office at Ghaziabad. Therefore, the Tribunal 4 has rightly held that the Court did not have jurisdiction to decide the claim case. 12- The Division Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bholi Begum and others, reported in 2007(1) U.D., 22, has held that in the case where the claimants were residents of District Pilibhit, owner of the offending vehicle was also resident of District Pilibhit, and the offending vehicle was insured by the insurance company at its Pilibhit Branch and its Head Office was at Chennai, claim petition filed before the Tribunal at Nainital, has no jurisdiction. 13- The ratio of above cited case is fully applicable to the facts of the case in hand. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal, thereby dismissing the claim petition. 14- In view of above discussion, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 26-8-2006 is upheld. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB 5 6