A. K. GOHIL, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT-CLAIMANT has filed this appeal under section 173 of the motor Vehicles Act against the award dated 19. 4. 2001 passed by the Additional m. A. C. T. , Dhar in Claim Case No. 4 of 2001 dismissing the claim petition without considering the merits of the case on the ground that the M. A. C. T. , Dhar is not having jurisdiction to hear and decide petition filed by the claimant and further directing that if the claimant wants to take back the petition he may do so for its presentation before the competent court having jurisdiction in the matter. ( 2 ) THE following facts in this case are not in dispute for the disposal of this appeal that the accident in question occurred on 4. 5. 1999 at village Limkheda near Godhra in the State of Gujarat and the claimant/ the driver of the vehicle, resides at village sagwal, Tehsil Sardarpur, District Dhar and the vehicle which met with the accident was insured with respondent No. 2, united India Insurance Co. Ltd. having its branch office at Indore. Admittedly, in this case the policy was issued at Indore and that the claim petition was filed before the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhar. The insurance company took an objection before the M. A. C. T. , Dhar that the Claims tribunal at Dhar is not having any jurisdiction to decide the claim petition on the ground that neither the accident in question took place within the jurisdiction of Dhar court nor the claimant resides within its local jurisdiction nor the insurance policy was taken at Dhar nor the branch office of the insurance company situated at Dhar was made as party in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition on the ground of jurisdiction. ( 3 ) LEARNED Tribunal after framing the issues including the issues of jurisdiction and after considering the case of the parties and the provisions of section 166 (2)of the Motor Vehicles Act, held that since on all the grounds no cause of action arose to the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of the M. A. C. T. , Dhar, the Dhar court is not having any jurisdiction to decide the claim petition filed by claimant, against which the claimant has filed this appeal. ( 4 ) MR. ( 4 ) MR. Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the M. A. C. T. , dhar has not taken a proper decision in the matter and has not recorded a legal finding. His further submission is that the respondent insurance company is also having its branch office at Dhar and, therefore, under section 166 (2) when respondent resides within the jurisdiction of the Dhar court, the Tribunal situated at Dhar can entertain the claim application filed by the claimant. In reply Mr. Dandwate, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company submits that though the respondent insurance company is having its branch office at Dhar but the said branch office has not been added as a party in the claim petition. He further submits that neither the insurance policy was issued by the Dhar office nor the claimant resides at the local jurisdiction of the Dhar court. Therefore, his submission is that unless any one of these conditions is fulfilled at Dhar it cannot be argued that the Dhar court has jurisdiction to decide the, claim petition filed by the appellant and that the Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding about the jurisdiction of the Dhar court dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimant. ( 5 ) AFTER hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties firstly, it is necessary to consider the provisions of section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act which after amendment by Act 54 of 1994 w. e. f. 14. 11. 1994 provides an option to the claimant to file the claim petition as provided under sub-section (2) of section 166. The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read as under:"166. Application for compensation. 11. 1994 provides an option to the claimant to file the claim petition as provided under sub-section (2) of section 166. The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read as under:"166. Application for compensation. xxx xxx xxx (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 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. " ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the aforesaid provisions of law after 14. 11. 1994 every application under sub-section (1) shall be filed 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. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY, in this case the claimant resides at village Sagwal, Tehsil Sardarpur which comes within the jurisdiction of the M. A. C. T. , Sardarpur. It is also not in dispute that neither the accident in question occurred within the jurisdiction of the m. A. C. T. , Dhar nor where the defendant resides. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the insurance company is having its branch office at Dhar but as rightly pointed out by Mr. Dandwate, the appellant had not made the Dhar office of the insurance company as a party in the claim petition whereas the claimant has made the branch office of Indore as a party in the petition where the policy was issued. It is also not in dispute that even after taking the objection by the insurance company the claimant had not filed any application for amendment in the claim petition adding the local branch office of the insurance company at Dhar as a party in the petition. It is also not in dispute that even after taking the objection by the insurance company the claimant had not filed any application for amendment in the claim petition adding the local branch office of the insurance company at Dhar as a party in the petition. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the M. A. C. T. , Dhar has taken a reasonable view in the matter and has rightly held that it is not having any jurisdiction in the'matter. ( 8 ) IT is nobody but the claimant to satisfy the Tribunal on the question of jurisdiction though after amendment w. e. f. 14. 11. 1994 the legislature has provided a very vast jurisdiction to file a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or on whose local limits the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. Now it is clear that after the amendment w. e. f. 14. 11. 1994, the claimant can file a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal within the-local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant himself resides or carries on business which clearly means that now legislature has provided jurisdiction to the Claims Tribunal which falls within the limits where the claimant resides or carries on business. Therefore, the claimant should not have any grievance in the matter for filing the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal within whose jurisdiction he himself is residing. Admittedly, in this case the claimant is residing within the jurisdiction of the M. A. C. T. , sardarpur which is more close to his place of residence than M. A. C. T. , Dhar which is at a distant place. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the tribunal has taken a legal view in the matter and has rightly held that the M. A. C. T. , dhar is not having jurisdiction under section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. ( 9 ) THUS, after considering the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this appeal and is liable to be dismissed with costs. ( 9 ) THUS, after considering the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this appeal and is liable to be dismissed with costs. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has no objection to take the claim petition back from M. A. C. T. , Dhar in order to file it before the M. A. C. T. , Sardarpur within whose jurisdiction the claimant is residing. In view of this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, this appeal is disposed of with a direction that within 30 days appellant may take back the original petition and all other necessary documents from the M. A. C. T. , Dhar and may file the same before the competent Claims Tribunal which falls within the purview of section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also directed that if any such application is filed by the claimant before the Claims tribunal, having the jurisdiction as per section 166 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act, the same shall be decided in accordance with law. Parties are directed to bear their own costs,. Record be returned immediately. Appeal dismissed. .