PANDEY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision against the order dated 10. 10. 98, in Motor Accident claim Case No. 27 of 1998, whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, jabalpur has rejected the claim application filed by the applicants on the ground that the applicants are not residing at Jabalpur. They were residing at Narsinghpur at the time of the accident. The accident occurred in the District Seoni, near Chhapara. The applicants were permanent residents of village Paylikala, Police Station Chhapara, tahsil Lakhnadaun, District Seoni and, therefore, they cannot file the claim petition on the basis that they were residing at jabalpur at Chhui Khadan, Gangasagar, garha. The permanent address given by the applicants in their application was that they were residents of village Paylikala, police Station Chhapara, Tahsil Lakhnadaun, district Seoni. They had filed an affidavit to the effect that they were residing at Jabalpur and they do not want to shift from Jabalpur to their village Paylikala. In the statement of claim also in para 17-D they had stated that they were residing at Gangasagar, Garha, Jabalpur. ( 2 ) IT is urged before me that sub-section (2) of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') was substituted which says that a claim can be made, inter alia, at the place where the claimant resides or carries on his business. The averment in the application and also the affidavit of the applicant No. 1 showed that the applicants resided at Jabalpur and they had no intention to leave this place and, therefore, this claim can be made at jabalpur instead of any other place. ( 3 ) THE Claims Tribunal was of the view that it was not clear whether the applicants could file their claim at Jabalpur in view of the averment made in the claim case and, therefore, rejected the application. ( 4 ) IT is true that the applicants, in their application, have not been very clear. In the cause-title they have shown themselves to be residents of village Paylikala, police Station Chhapara, Tahsil Lakhnadaun, district Seoni. They had then also filed their registered address showing themselves to be the residents of village paylikala, Police Station Chhapara, Tahsil lakhnadaun, District Seoni. In the cause-title they have shown themselves to be residents of village Paylikala, police Station Chhapara, Tahsil Lakhnadaun, district Seoni. They had then also filed their registered address showing themselves to be the residents of village paylikala, Police Station Chhapara, Tahsil lakhnadaun, District Seoni. However, in the body of the application under section 166 of the Act it has been stated that at present, the applicants are residing at jabalpur and their address is Chhui Khadan, gangasagar, Garha, Jabalpur. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, the question of territorial jurisdiction is still to be determined and the cases of the claimants cannot be thrown out merely because they are illiterate or not able to make clear statement. It was the duty of the learned Claims Tribunal to record their statements specifically whether they had permanently shifted to Jabalpur as they had claimed in the affidavit filed by the applicant No. 1, on record. But the statement of the applicant No. 1 was just recorded and in her statement she stated that she had made a claim of Rs. 7,90,000 and nothing was asked of her. It was the duty of the presiding officer of the Claims tribunal to ask her whether she was actually residing at Jabalpur. ( 6 ) THIS court is of the view that looking to the fact that an affidavit has been filed by the applicant No. 1 that she had no land in village Paylikala, Police Station Chhapara, tahsil Lakhnadaun, District Seoni and she had permanently shifted to Jabalpur as a labourer, it would be proper to accept her statement on the basis of her affidavit. These people are poor people and poor people have no permanent abode. They have to leave their residences often in search of their livelihood. Under these circumstances, if the applicants state that they intend to stay at Jabalpur and want to carry on their business at Jabalpur, it would be most inappropriate to say that they should file their claim at the place from where they originated. However, there is no reason for the court to hold that they would not reside at Jabalpur. The learned counsel for the applicants should have corrected the cause-title according to the affidavit of the applicant No. 1 and also registered address of the applicants so that any confusion which might have arisen on account of incorrect address should have been cured. The learned counsel for the applicants should have corrected the cause-title according to the affidavit of the applicant No. 1 and also registered address of the applicants so that any confusion which might have arisen on account of incorrect address should have been cured. ( 7 ) THIS court, therefore, accepts version of the applicants that at present they are residing at Jabalpur. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the non-applicants, however, argued that it would not be correct to say that the applicants were residing at Jabalpur. However, the claim petition shows that the applicant No. 1 has specifically said in her claim case that the applicants were residing at Jabalpur and affidavit of the applicant No. 1 also says that the applicants were residing at Jabalpur after death of Rambharos, who was the husband of the applicant No. 1 and father of the applicant No. 2. In such circumstances, it would not be proper to hold that at the time of filing the claim application the applicants were not residing at jabalpur. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the non-applicants argued that even if the applicants were residing at Jabalpur at the time of filing of the claim petition, this court should not hold that there was territorial jurisdiction vested in the Claims Tribunal at Jabalpur for the reason that at the time of occurrence of the accident, they were not residing at Jabalpur. The applicant was working as labourer at Narsinghpur at that time and, therefore, the applicants could file the claim where the accident occurred or where the defendants resided. It may be profitable to compare the provisions of the code of Civil Procedure with those made under section 166 of the Act. In none of the sections 16 to 20 onwards, there is any provision that the plaintiff can file a suit where he resides. On the other hand, section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure has a similar provision regarding the defendants under sections 20 (a) and 20 (b)of the Code of Civil Procedure which prescribed that certain kinds of suits can be filed at the place where the defendants reside or carry on their business, or personally work for gain and this section 20 is applicable to any one of the defendants. ( 10 ) IT is obvious, therefore, that the legislature, in this case, has departed from usual rule that the suit should ordinarily be filed where cause of action arose or part of cause of action arose, or at the place the defendants reside. For the first time, section 166 of the Act has been amended by substituting sub-section (2) to it as per motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 (No. 54 of 1994), in view of the objects and reasons therefor para 4 of which reads as follows:"4. The Law Commission in its 119th report had recommended that every application for a claim be made to the claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal withinthe local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, at the option of the claimant. The Bill also makes necessary provision to give effect to the said recommendation. "from para 4 quoted above, it appears that this departure was made at the instance of 119th Report of Law Commission to the effect that a special provision be made in section 166 (2) of the Act for the first time that the claimant can file his application where he resides. This was special concession made to the claimant looking to the circumstances that it would be most inconvenient to drive a claimant to place where the accident occurred, if the claimant does not normally reside or carry on his business within the local limits of a Tribunal. This option was given to the claimant with a view to facilitate justice and was made by way of departure from the normal rule. The learned counsel for non-applicants, however, requires this court to adopt a narrow construction of section 166 (2) of the act and to interpret it in such a manner that words 'where the applicant resides' should be related in time to the occurrence of accident. In other words, if the applicant moves away from the place where he was residing or doing his business at the time of accident, he cannot file a claim at the place he actually resides and he should go to the place where he used to reside at the time of accident. In other words, if the applicant moves away from the place where he was residing or doing his business at the time of accident, he cannot file a claim at the place he actually resides and he should go to the place where he used to reside at the time of accident. This contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicant is on account of the fact that he wants to relate the word 'occurrence' with word 'resides'. However, the clear words in section 166 (2) of the Act do not allow such liberty with the language. Section 166 (2) of the act may be reproduced as under:"166 (2) Every application under subsection (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 to 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: 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. "it is very clear that an applicant can file an application within the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal (i) where the accident occurred; or (ii) before the Claims tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on his business; or (iii) within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries on his business. Now, the word 'or' separates the three clauses and clear grammatical construction would be that the applicant can choose either of the three for getting the option. The very fact that there are three options implies that claimant has been given a right to choose one of the three possible places for exercising his option in a given case. Where the claimant exercises the option given in second clause mentioned above, all that the Claims Tribunal is required to find out, if the claimant resides or carries on his business within its territorial jurisdiction. The residence of the claimants in this case is of consequence the legislature gave them benefit of the option given in the second clause by going out of the way. The residence of the claimants in this case is of consequence the legislature gave them benefit of the option given in the second clause by going out of the way. ( 11 ) IN view of this matter, the impugned order dated 10. 10. 1998 is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. The case is sent back to the Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, for further trial in accordance with law. No costs. Appeal allowed. .