IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 212/2008 Mangad Singh and others .. Appellants. Versus The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and others …. Respondents. Sri Z.U. Siddiquie, learned counsel for the appellants. Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. None has appeared on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. (Oral) This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, arise against the judgment and award dated 17-4- 2008, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Addl. District Judge/I F.T.C. Haldwani, in MACT Case No. 135/2006, Mangad Singh and others Vs. New India Assurance Company and others. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 1-2-2005 at about 4.30 P.M. when Buta Singh Bahedi was coming near Harendra Man Far, motorcycle No. UA-06-B/ 8840 dashed him in a rash and negligent manner due to which he sustained severe injuries and on his person. He was brought to Kichha Government Hospital and looking his precarious condition he was carried to J.L.N. Hospital, Rudrapur where he died on 14-2-005 during the course of his treatment. According to the claimants Rs. 20,000/- were spent on the treatment of deceased and Rs. 10,000/- were spent on transportation of the deceased. It is also alleged in the claim petition that the deceased at the time of his death was 62 years of age and he used to earn Rs. 1,50,000/- per annum by doing the 2 agricultural work. Therefore, the claimants filed claim petition for award of compensation of Rs. 8,20,000/-. 3- The opposite party no.1, New India Assurance Company filed its written statement and denied the allegations made in the petition. It further alleged that the owner of offending motorcycle has breached the conditions of insurance policy. It is further alleged that the accident took place within the limits of Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar, claimants and the owner of the motorcycle are resident of Udham Singh Nagar, therefore, the court at District Nainital has no jurisdiction to try the case. 4- The opposite party no.2, owner of the offending motorcycle alleged that the accident has occurred due to own negligence of the deceased. The motorcycle was being plied at a moderate speed. He also alleged that the driver of the motorcycle was possessing valid and effective driving license and it was insured with New India Assurance Company. 5- The opposite party no.3, also filed his written statement and alleged that the accident has occurred due to own negligence of the deceased and he was having valid and effective driving license. 6- The learned tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Thereafter parties adduced evidence in support of their cases. The learned tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record, held that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the case and accordingly directed that the petition be returned to the claimants. 3 7- Feeling aggrieved the claimants have preferred this appeal before this court. 8- Heard learned counsel for the claimants/appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company. None has appeared on behalf of other respondents in spite of sufficient service of notice. 9- Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the claimant is residing at Haldwani and the tribunal at Haldwani, District Nainital has jurisdiction to try the case, but the tribunal has committed manifest error in holding that the tribunal at Haldwani has no jurisdiction to try the claim petition. 10- In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellants has cited the ruling of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, reported in 2009 ACJ 564. I have gone through the aforesaid cited case and I find that the case law cited by learned counsel for the appellants does not apply to the facts of the instant case, as the claimant in that case was working as a labourer and in connection with his labour work he was residing at the place where the jurisdiction of tribunal occur, while in the instant case the claimant himself in the claim petition has given his address of Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar and the occupation of the deceased has been given as farmer. There is no indication of any factual aspects that either the deceased or the claimant has been working as a labourer in Haldwani. The claimant has simply stated in his cross-examination that he has a house at Avas Vikas Colony Haldwani, but he could not adduce any cogent 4 and reliable evidence that he in fact is residing at Haldwani. 11- Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the learned tribunal while deciding issue no.3 has discussed the point of jurisdiction. P.W.1, Mangad Singh, claimant in the case, has deposed that he is residents of Pulbhatta, P.S. Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar and after the death of his father he has sold his all the agricultural land but he has not adduced any cogent and reliable evidence in support of his above statement. This witness further deposed that at the time of accident of his father he was in Punjab and he resides at Haldwani on a rental house of Avas Vikas. He further deposed that he is in possession of one room, but he could not tell the house number, name of the owner of that house and the amount of rent he use to pay. Here it may be noted that this witness in his statement, before cross-examination, has given his address as residents of village Pulbhatta, Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar. Further this witness did not assert the purpose of residing at Haldwani, as to whether he is doing labour work there or he has come there in order to some medical treatment or some other purpose. The opposite party New India Assurance Company got this fact investigated from its surveyor as to whether the claimant actually resides at Avas Vikas Haldwani or not. D.W.1, A.S. Rathore, surveyor of the insurance company, has deposed that after due investigation he found that the claimant did not reside at Avas Vikas Haldwani. He also submitted certificate paper No. 38-C/2 issued by Ward Member Sri Pankaj Khati and his investigation report paper No. 38- C/1. The learned tribunal also recorded a categorical finding that had the claimant been in occupation of a house at Avas Vikas Haldwani, and residing at Haldwani, 5 he could have filed the voter list and other independent reliable evidence but he has failed to do so and he cannot be said to a resident of District Nainital. 12- Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants also argued that a branch office of New India Assurance Company is at Haldwani and on this count also the tribunal has got the jurisdiction at District Nainital. 13- The learned tribunal has dealt this point at a great length in the impugned judgment while deciding issue no.3. Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act makes provision for filing application for compensation 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. The learned tribunal also relied the verdict of this court in 2007 (1) U.D.-22, United India Insurance Company Versus Smt. Bholi Begun and others. The facts of the cited case are fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. In the cited case the accident has occurred in district Pilibhit, claimant also used to reside in Pilibhit, the insurance of the offending vehicle was done at Pilibhit Branch of the insurance company, whose head office was at Chennai and a branch office was at Haldwani. But this court did find jurisdiction in District Nainital merely on the basis that a branch office of insurance company is located at Haldwani. In the instant case the claimants are resident of Kichha, Udham Singh Nagar, owner of the vehicle is also resident of Udham Singh Nagar and the vehicle was insured at Udham Singh Nagar Branch of the Insurance Company, therefore, merely on the ground that a branch of the 6 insurance company is located at Haldwani, did not empower the tribunal at District Nainital, to try the claim petition. 14- In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case I am in total agreement with the finding recorded by the learned tribunal that the tribunal at Haldwani, District Nainital, has no jurisdiction to decide the claim petition. 15- For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the tribunal is hereby confirmed. Dated 21-7-2009 (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB