IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2183 OF 2011 Between: T.Ramsubba Reddy …Appellant A n d Jagan Mohan Reddy and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.2183 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.09.2007 in I.A.No.215 of 2007 in O.P.No.1447 of 2005, on the ﬁle of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (XVII Additional Chief Judge-cum- III- Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge), Hyderabad, wherein the said application ﬁled by 2nd respondent/insurer under Section 151 CPC requesting the Court to decide the issue as to whether the Court has got jurisdiction to try the O.P, as a preliminary issue, was allowed, holding that the Court has no jurisdiction and the claimant has to ﬁle O.P before the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T), Kadapa. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent- insurer, who was appointed to represent the respondent-insurer. Perused the record. 3. The appellant ﬁled claim application seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. The insurer opposed the claim by ﬁling a counter inter alia on the ground that the Court at Hyderabad has no jurisdiction, as the accident occurred within the jurisdiction of M.A.C.T, Kadapa. By the impugned order, the Tribunal upheld the said contention and directed the claimant to approach the M.A.C.T, Kadapa. 4. As seen from the impugned order, the claimant was residing at Hyderabad at the time of ﬁling the claim application. The Tribunal also observed that the claimant has got option to ﬁle the application before the Court within whose jurisdiction the accident took place or the claimant is residing. But the claimant was admittedly residing at Hyderabad. At the time of ﬁling the claim application, the Tribunal at Hyderabad certainly has got jurisdiction. 5. The learned counsel for the claimant would submit that though the accident has taken place in Kadapa District, the claimant has subsequently shifted his residence to Hyderabad in connection with his treatment at NIMS for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Thus, the claimant was, therefore, resident of Hyderabad at the time of ﬁling the claim application. The Tribunal at Hyderabad has got jurisdiction to entertain the claim application and dispose of the same. The Tribunal has not considered the matter on its merits. 6. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The impugned order directing the claimant to approach the M.A.C.T., Kadapa is held unsustainable and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to t h e Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (XVII- Additional Chief Judge-cum-III-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge), Hyderabad, for disposal in accordance with law. Having regard to the fact that the claim application is of the year 2005 and the matter is stated to be part-heard, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed accordingly as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 07th December 2011 Note: CC in one week Lrkm.