E‘ ‘ H W LRA‘iidsian Bench IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 67g OF 2005 Appellant / (Claimant JV #amprasad @ Ramu, aged abdut 21 vears, S/ o.Shri Nandkumar Vishvakérma, resident of Village Rasni, rP/S. Arang, District Raipur (C.G.). Versus Respondents/ '1), Ganesh Sahu aged about 33 years S/o iNon—applic ts ‘1 Shri NetramISahu, resident of Godhela; I - I ' 1 Aaj. A.~J R ana-‘éwi‘aoé P/S. Arjunda, Disu'ict Durg (CQG.). Vinay S/o. Goplklshan Kliniar Bagri, Ba£1fx§d aged about SY at 5g] . amadhl‘b ears, The New India InsurancénégLtéqJ {gr}; aw é], 'e’ through Divisional Office, Kachahri Chauk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) $:.§§ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION”’1V§3- ‘5‘. ”b OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 Ramprasad amu Vs Gangs}: 3&1 u, & oiha rs (3} Q ‘%‘-e§é7i‘r‘: F M Ariv f n? r. A}. 5 qmu! oca‘re or m2 amena Hmr'é. . he a9§e§ian¢£§a§m£mf has fiieci fhis"mis¢éiiimeous api uner Secrion 1 {2f ?he Mawt ehicies Agf; i983 (fw §h rT_"frhé ACT”) againsf The gra? Qwh9rgby 'izhe 'l gmaé §T V. FTC: Raiur' (“Far- sr? Hin Cms rbunal ) has dismisse Ti'lz'eickiim'i‘giiicafign of fhe aghaiian‘r herin. ’Fass?s a Te saserz brief; are fhaf five ‘aeiianT—cidiman iaé Ti d‘lq e 'g 5 pgsg gtgd 1‘253‘29‘ ’ \g dc‘fio d lm N m gai Cgsg o Ci m iiéuhal T péa d ?3 V wa ‘2Q4 h r A‘cden'!’ Ciais TVr‘ s d wa engage as ? h j pgf ‘:Ciaaner/aiaH‘; r; $3 yehc bearifg regs‘rm’rign number CG§8~ZEw0i§CL beagde he mad as a resuf'r fhe aelicm. ‘d grievaus mgumes on his hands rubs ”race 5: head Remri o we accwmf was waged m 'f’he Panza bkon baa Qssfmcf Qamandaa He s admn‘Wd m The naspn‘a! and durma Treafmen‘l’ %1is eg beiow *he me was umputa‘red ~ 0:3 e gmun ma? ug #9 £11K“ $US1R f ng W f m ; Ih on A’Q ? iha ameam-rimmam had fued a CEmm annhcru‘mn seeking cnmgmwa‘m 1‘0 me 11:13 0* R5 w‘mnn a ms iaa he ms gusi‘ md ass a? gamma gamm ad arefwv’ h» is awmw *o werewz i5 T6raaaid amwn‘? as sompensm‘m Aiinai Q p ho g ‘Hv ik i n ; h 1 ? y n m n g / th d d 4. =32 €iaims Trirbur‘i’ai bi? The" basis bf: “rhe Dieaéiings mi fhe parfies iimmedf a? many 11¢ ”Five wsues and aTTer hearma The Dar'hes in i'h? ma'Har dismissw +he riaim anphcwmn g'F fhg rimma’ Wa my? hmr‘d iearned caunsai for The Dar‘rws and perusgd +h3 s‘nnucarwed awarci as uiso records o‘!’ *he gcums Iribunal beiow i F’erusai a'F The impugned awarci shaws THaT,{rThough ‘iha Shims Tribuna! has mT {mmad any issue regarding juriscii‘c‘rion bu? dismissed The ciaim peii‘rian mainiy chi: Ting ground' of jurisdic’iion by hoiding Thai 'fhe apgéiian?ihas mT Fiie’dany dgsumgn‘mry prosfragcxrrjing his rzsidence. Fmm {he sescription givgn in the muse'i‘i'iig of giaim appiimtian iT is avidgnzr fhafthe _a§né§ian?—ciaimanf has givenii’iis address as ii§amgfgsggf a? §m§§4 aged" ; yegrs. gar; sf Mansili’gatiiar L’iskwaggnmgg rgsidanf \ ‘ '3‘? ffk's'e £§W A‘ Fsg'icv b‘ai'lan xiamngg Qsfriw EaiabLiH‘. The dassrigfian 9% Th? msgondew NO —,nsumnc2 Comnany has been wiamiioriad’ as My New ingza Msnranrz 6amganv Lrrmfgd fkraggfr fan Qiwsmnai §Ff§car {)irwsimai Office gather! £7wwk Jay éaad .‘ Ragur‘ .LT is aiso no? m disgufe ma? fhe Diwsiomi Uf‘hce o‘F The New .mcim insuranaa L ny L'rd is m Ramur‘ o a Secfion 166 (2) of 're Ac? 388 nrowd nérra-i ' ‘ ‘ h é Ué Wary apmlcafion under sub—seC'rion (1} shaii be made a? file en’rion of The c'mmun? vl‘fher 10 fhe Liaims lribunal “mi/Ins; iurlsdichon aver The area m which The acmden‘P Qscurred, or- TQ The Claims Tribunai within The iocaii 'iimiis bf?_wi'iose jurisdisfion ihe‘ ciaiinarif resides br carries on business or within The iocai iimi'rs 91: whnse i » . , jurisdiefien fhe defendan‘r resides, and shuii be in such A. ‘ . . i ' e "i’orm- and cenmin, sueh ’gar'ficuiars ‘as may be grescrtibedfi i A piain reading bi: ihé‘above Dhovision of idw ivouid reveai Thai“ i“? hasi newhere menfioned in This riause ma? The ciaim ne‘h‘hon can be filed oniv i befare The I iaims TribLnai vrlfhln local iimi'rs of whose iurisdicfion *he , i i i i :3“ m ; fi : 7 3 :Qwham’“ u‘: siaimm? rashied at? The ”(infra 0i: accidem ar‘ carried: Lin fha business. The orak ‘rgsides‘ and ‘cm‘ries an The buginess‘ danom Tha'r a? fha Wrima of fiiinca siaim aetitign bafare The Ciaims Tribunai fhe Ciaimcm? sheuid be he residzn? 01': an arm faiiina wi‘fhin ifs loam jurisdicfion; in whet“ wgrés, f'he "residesi deno‘h‘zs The graaan‘? csd'd'rass cmé m’r. "rhe pas? address a? {he daimam. Thus, in Qur amnion, ciismissczi of The, ciaim 3?i'?im by 'Hqe Ciaims Tribunai 9n 1kg aground :31: jurisrjicfion is no? mma? as in ft‘he Dresem‘ case ihe Ciaims Tribunai QT Raipur is oniv having iurisciicfian’ 1’0 ‘i'r'v and en‘rarmin ihe ciaim pefition a1? The ciaimam. 1n 'ihe resuif. we aiiaw this amend, 5e? aside ?§1e impugnxd award and’ remit if'he mafia!" Eack m fhe Ciaims Tribunai To ciecide fha ciaim pe'riiion afi‘ash arrmeriw’ Tide parfie$ $haii be anih‘ied Ta amené Th2 pieadings or fiig ziocumen'fs or" yerify The dscumenfs aireadv fiieci, " ii. Qaediess Tb meriTioii fim'i' 'i‘his maifer is aid we stind’ raquires 'amedi‘rious iisgziosai, :Piie'refera, ”{he Cicims Tribunai is exnec'reci *s’o'a'ecide ihe $czmg as gariy as gossibie. pré‘fembiy wifhin a period ef six meni’hs‘ fmm éfhe date, of recein'r 9f cemfied may m: fhis award. 1 S.h ar1izsiare directed m annear‘ bafere The Ciaims Tribunai ccmcerned :n ié‘" Jgag g§11. Tha Ragig‘try ES dirag-Ld m “imi'ismi‘? “ihz rag-wit? Q“? ‘i'ha ciaims iri‘bunai cencarneci WHhQuf further deiav‘ i ea wm¥A A w f § E 0i . 2. §erti§iad copy as Mr wigs, Sdl- Sdl- i I.M.Quddusi Prashant Kumar Mishra F i Judge Judge . i