IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal Against Award No. 611 of 2006 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. … Appellant Vs Naresh Kuamar & another … Respondents Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant Sri G.S. Negi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 05.08.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/IIIrd Fast Track Court, Nainital in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 220 of 2005, Naresh Kumar Vs Raj Pal Singh & another. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.06.2005 at about 07:00 p.m., Naresh Kumar was coming from Pilibhit on a motorcycle No. UP25S/6009, as a pillion rider. When he reached near Jatipur, another motorcycle No. UP26C/4292, which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner hit, the motorcycle No. UP25S/6009, due to which, he sustained serious injuries. According to the claim petition, the claimant was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month by doing the business of cloths. Therefore, he has filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for a sum of Rs. 11,30,000/- as compensation. 3. The opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing written statement before the Tribunal denying the allegations made in the claim petition. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed relevant issues, which were discussed in a great detail. Thereafter, both the parties led evidence in support of their case. After 2 hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire material available on record, the Tribunal decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 45,850/- as compensation vide judgment and award dated 05.08.2006 against the appellant. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellant has preferred this appeal before this Court. 5. Heard Sri T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri G.S. Negi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the short controversy in this case as to whether the Tribunal at Nainital had jurisdiction to try the claim petition in view of the provision of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act or not. 7. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, it would be necessary to quote the provision of relevant Section of 166(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, which reads as under:- “Application for compensation 1) ………. 2) Every application under sub-section (1) 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, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed. 3 Provided that where no claim for compensation under Section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.” 8. In view of the aforesaid provision, it appears that three conditions are necessary. Firstly, the claimant should be the resident of the area in which the Tribunal is situated having jurisdiction to entertain the petition; secondly, the accident should occurred over the area with which the Tribunal is having the jurisdiction to try the claim petition and thirdly, the defendant should reside or carry a business within the local limits of the area in which the Tribunal having jurisdiction to deal with the claim petition. 9. In the instant case, it appears from the claim petition that the claimant is resident of Village Rasoola Kamrunishan, Tehsil Nawabganj, District Bareilly. The owner of the vehicle Rajpal Singh is also a resident of District Pilibhit. Paragraph 17 of the claim petition further reveals that the motorcycle No. UP26C/4292, which was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. i.e. appellant was also insured with the Pilibhit Branch. Further, it appears that the claimant in his claim petition also disclosed that he was having a cloth shop with the name and style of M/s Shrijee Wastra Bhandat, Nawabganj, District Bareilly. The claimant was cross examined before the Tribunal and in his cross examination he has categorically stated that he is a resident of Bareilly and the accident in this case occurred within the local limits of District Pilibhit. He has also stated that the owner of the vehicle involved in the case is also resident of Pilibhit. He has also stated that he carries on his business in Nawabganj, Bareilly. Therefore, all the aforesaid material available on record clearly 4 indicates that the claim Tribunal at Nainital had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition in any manner, in view of the provision of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 10. The findings recorded by the Tribunal appears to be absolutely perverse and against the evidence available on record. The Tribunal has unnecessarily made an observation that the claim Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide the claim petition on the basis of the stray deposition of the claimant that he visits Haldwani in connection with his business of cloths. The deposition of the aforesaid nature, will not entitle the claim tribunal to entertain the claim petition, unless the ingredients under Section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act are specifically attracted. 11. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the impugned judgment of the award dated 05.08.2006 suffers with material illegality. The claim tribunal at Nainital had no jurisdiction to decide the claim petition in any manner, in view of the specific provision of the Motor Vehicle Act. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award is set aside. 13. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court at the time of filing the appeal be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. The amount deposited by the appellant with the Tribunal be refunded to the appellant as and when he moves an application before the Tribunal. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 01.10.2008 ASWAL