IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTH (6TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND, NINE Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1324 of 2006 Between: Meenakandam Francis …. Appellant And: Ganesh Patro & 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1324 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.12.2005 in OP SR No.12992 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry, wherein the said application filed by the appellant herein was returned for presentation before proper Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Perused the record. 3. The appellant herein filed claim application seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act [for short ‘M.V. Act’] before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajahmundry. It is not disputed that the accident occurred at Kovvuru of West Godavari district on 16.01.2005. It is also not disputed that the claimant is a resident of Kovvuru. He filed claim application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajahmundry, East Godavari district, instead of filing the same before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Eluru, on the ground that he was working in Hotel Rathna Palace at Rajahmundry. Section 166(2) of the M.V. Act stipulates that ‘every application under this section shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or 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 claimant is neither resident of Rajahmundry nor doing any business at Rajahmundry and the accident did not take place within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Rajahmundry. None of the respondents is also residents of Rajahmundry of East Godavari district. The only link of the claimant with Rajahmundry is that he is working in a hotel at Rajahmundry. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that it would be convenient for the claimant to attend the Tribunal at Rajmundry, which is just across the river from his place of residence at Kovvuru, instead of Tribunal at Eluru, which is 50 KM away. The convenience of the claimant and the proximity of the location of the Tribunal to his place of residence or the work place, are of no consequence in the matter of jurisdiction in terms of Section 166(2) of the M.V. Act. Learned counsel for the appellant/ claimant would submit that the expression ‘business’ has to be interpreted in a wider sense and in that connection, he invited the attention to a decision of the apex Court in ‘S.Mohan Lal vs. R. Kondaiah[1]’, wherein it was held as follows: “The expression business has not been defined in the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. It is a common expression, which is sometimes used by itself and sometimes in a collocation of words as in ‘business trade or profession’. It is a word of large and wide import, capable of a variety of meanings. It is needless to refer to the meanings given to that term in the various Dictionaries except to say that everyone of them noticed a large number of meanings of the word. In a broad sense it is taken to mean ‘everything that occupies the time, attention and labour of men for the purpose of livelihood or profit’.” 5. The interpretation given to the expression ‘business’ in the context of A.P. Buildings Act in the above decision cannot be imported into the present case arising under M.V. Act, especially, when the territorial jurisdiction for filing claim application is clearly specified in Section 166(2) of the M.V. Act. It is not the case of the appellant/claimant that he is doing any business at Rajahmundry or any other place in East Godavari district, within the limits of the Tribunal at Rajahmundry. Even according to the claimant, he is only an employee, working as receptionist in Hotel Rathna Palace at Rajahmundry. His employment within the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Rajahmundry does not enable him to file the claim application before the Tribunal at Rajahmundry in terms of Section 166(2) of the M. V. Act. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a decision in ‘Padminbai Ashok Yadle vs. Mannan Ismail Shaikh[2]’ wherein the Aurangabad Bench of High Court of Bombay, allowed the application for transfer of the claim from Latur to Palghar, Thane district, observing that ‘the provisions of the M.V. Act relating to compensation to victims of accidents are welfare provisions made for the benefit of the victims and these provisions have to be liberally construed in favour of the claimants and the requests for transfer of proceedings should be liberally granted unless it is shown that grave injustice would be caused to the opponents’. In the above case, the accident occurred at Nalegaon, within the limits of Latur district. The claimants were residents of Mumbai and they sought transfer of their claim application from Latur to Palghar on the ground that it would be difficult for them to attend the Tribunal at Latur from Bombay and it would be more convenient for them to attend the Tribunal at Palghar and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents, because, it would be convenient for them also to attend the Tribunal at Palghar. The first respondent was in the employment of the 2nd respondent and was residing with the 2nd respondent. Thus two of the respondents in the claim application were residents within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Palghar. It was therefore considered that it would be convenient for the respondents also to contest the claim application at Palghar. Section 166(2) contemplates filing of the claim application among other things within the limits of Tribunal in whose jurisdiction defendant resides. It was, therefore, a case of both Tribunals at Latur and Palghar having jurisdiction and such transfer was found to be convenient to the claimants and also to the respondents and it was ordered. But in the present case, the Tribunal at Rajahmundry, East Godavari district has no jurisdiction at all in terms of Section 166(2) of the M.V. Act and the decision is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal, has, therefore, rightly ordered return of the petition for presentation before proper Tribunal, having territorial jurisdiction. The impugned order does not call for any interference in this appeal. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 06.11.2009 bss [1] AIR 1979 SC 1132 [2] 2003 ACJ 247