THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P. No. 3539 of 2009 Order: Aggrieved by the exercise of jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal and District Judge, Ongole, in MVOP No.120 of 2009 the present revision petition has been filed. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the District Judge, Ongole, in M.V.O.P. No.120 of 2009 contending inter alia that their son G. Murali Krishna died in a motor accident on 27.08.2002. The deceased was working as an employee in the petitioner’s company. While he was driving the Car bearing No.M008007 Mazda 626 model and while going to Bishkek from Kazakistan on official work of the petitioner’s company he met with an accident and died. It is also alleged that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the petitioner’s company. The petitioner company filed a counter mainly contending that the accident took place in Kazakistan and that the vehicle was registered outside India and it was insured with the Company operating in Kazakistan outside the territorial jurisdiction of India and therefore the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the accident occurred outside India and the vehicle involved in the accident was also registered outside India the Tribunals in India have no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, in support of his contention that the claim petition is maintainable before the Tribunal, has relied on the decisions reported in (1) Savara Pydi Raju and others v. T. Venkata Rao and others[1], (2) Muthuraj v. V.M. Kandasamy and another[2], (3) M/s. Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd., v. Union of India and another[3], (4) Bhagwati Devi and others v. M/s. I.S. Goel and others[4], (5) Adarwati and another v. Mohanlal and others[5], and (6) Swaran Kaur v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs and others[6]. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any application to decide whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition or not. Without resorting to such steps, they have straight away filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Now the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the Embassy of Almaty, Kazakisthan issued a letter that they can file an application claiming compensation in India. Any how these documents were not considered by the Tribunal and no orders have been passed by the Tribunal till this date as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition or not. In view of the same, I consider it just and reasonable to dispose of the revision petition directing the petitioner herein to file an application before the Tribunal to decide the issue as to whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition or not and on filing such application the Tribunal shall dispose of the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, in the circumstances, no costs. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 27.01.2011 Nsr [1] 2007 ACJ 2246 [2] 2007 ACJ 1230 [3] AIR 2004 SC 2321 [4] 1983 ACJ 123 [5] 2001 ACJ 1992 [6] 1992 ACJ 790