1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 8266 OF 2007 Mrs. Preeti Ravi Marathe ...Petitioner Vs. Manager, Khandala Taluka Sahakari Dudh Purawatha Sangh Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. M. B. Kotak, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Kunal Cheema, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mrs. Urmila K. Sanil, Advocate for Respondent No.2 Mr. R.M. Patne, A.G.P for the Respondent No.5 CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 2ND MARCH, 2010 P.C. : 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. This Writ Petition challenges the order of the Member, M.A.C.T, Mumbai holding that the claim application for compensation for the accident of applicant’s husband cannot be entertained by the Tribunal for want of territorial jurisdiction. 2 3. The territorial jurisdiction of a Court is where the accident occurred, where the claimant resided or carried on business or where the Respondent resided or carried on business. 4. In this case the accident occurred at Pune. The owner of the vehicle resides at Satara. The claimant who is the widow resided at Khamgaon from1996 until 2006. 5. The accident occurred on 9th November 1997. The claim application has been filed on 14th June 1999. The cross examination shows that at that time the claimant was residing at Khamgaon. Her parents-in-law were residing in Mumbai. The parents-in-law would have otherwise have been co-claimants. They are however made party Respondents to the claim. The Petitioner does not carry on business. The main aspect for territorial jurisdiction is her residence. Her cross examination shows an admission that she was residing at Khamgaon. She has relied upon a completely illegible xerox copy of a ration card showing her to have been added in the ration card of her uncle in Mumbai on 27th May 1999 denoting her residence in Mumbai. The address of the ration card cannot be read at all. Even accepting the address of her uncle as in Mumbai and the ration card is issued in Mumbai, the applicant herself has admitted in her cross examination that she resided at Khamgaon. The solitary document of ration card showing the name of the applicant added within a month prior to filing of the application cannot be taken as conclusive proof of residence in view of her own admission, of fact. 3 6. Hence the order of the learned Member, M.A.C.T, Mumbai dated 7th February 2007 cannot be faulted. 7. The application is correctly returned to proper Court. The evidence is complete. Hence the Court which has territorial jurisdiction shall continue the application and adjudicate upon it. 8. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner/applicant contends that the Insurance Company has appeared and been represented in the claim application. It is barred by the principles of res-judicata from raising the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction because no fault amount has been paid by the Insurance Company. That amount was to be paid within 45 days of the claim. The written statement of the Insurance Company has taken by the plea of territorial jurisdiction. The applicant/Petitioner could have filed the application in the place where she admittedly resided. If, she has chosen to file an application at another place she must bear the consequences. The consequences in this case only is that the papers are returned to the proper Court for filing. Hence no effort and time of the applicant is lost and hence the application of the applicant shall be continued in the Court having territorial jurisdiction. With that clarification the Writ Petition stands dismissed. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)