C O M M O N J U D G M E N T Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel appearing for the claimants and Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company-3rd respondent. 2. Since these appeals arise out of one and the same accident as well as the common order, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 3. In all these cases, claims have been made by the claimants seeking compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act’), on account of the accident occurred on 02-06-1996 at 4.30 a.m. at Nepal. 4. The vehicle involved is a Tourist bus bearing No.TN-01-N-297, which is one and the same in all the claim petitions and during the course of Tour, the accident occurred at Nepal. 5. The case of the claimants are that all the passengers were Tourists and it was a Tourist bus, which was booked for the purpose of Tour. They started their journey from Vizianagaram for the purpose of Tour in the said Tourist bus and, therefore, though the accident has occurred at Nepal, which is outside the Country, the provisions of Section 166 of the Act empowers the Tribunal to entertain their claim petitions. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in dismissing the claim petitions, in, toto, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. 6. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent Insurance Company raised an objection as to the maintainability of the claim petitions on the ground that since the accident occurred in the State of Nepal, which is totally a different nation, the claims that have been made under Section 166 of the Act are not maintainable on the point of jurisdiction and, therefore, there is no other go for the claimants except to approach the appropriate Court or Tribunal only at Nepal rather than in India. 7. Having considered the rival contentions of both the parties, the court below having observed that in view of the fact that the accident occurred at Nepal, the cause of action arise only at Nepal, and as such, the Courts in India have no jurisdiction to entertain the same, dismissed the claim petitions. Having aggrieved by the same, the present C.M.As have been preferred by the claimants. 8. Having aggrieved by the same, the present C.M.As have been preferred by the claimants. 8. On the rival contentions and in view of the fact that the accident occurred at Nepal, which is outside India, the point that arises for consideration in all these appeals is as to whether the Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be, has got any jurisdiction to entertain the claims made by the claimants herein by invoking the provisions of Section 166 of the Act. 9. There is no serious dispute with regard to the chequered events, especially as to the booking of tickets at Vizianagaram for the purpose of Tour in the Tourist bus in question as well as, as to the occurring of accident in the State of Nepal. 10. From these and other allegations as contended by the respective parties, it can be construed that the course of journey commences from both the ends, inasmuch as after visiting Nepal, the Tourists have to arrive at the place, where they have started. Therefore, in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case in nature, in order to adjudicate the cause of action either partly or wholly, such a comprehensive approach is very much necessary for determining the jurisdiction of the Courts. 11. At this stage, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 20(c) of CPC, which read thus: “the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.” 12. The above provision amply makes it clear that every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part arises. In this regard, it is also not out of place to mention that there is no such impediment as to the application of the provisions of Section 20(c) of CPC to the present facts of the case on hand. 13. But, this aspect has not been properly dealt with while deciding the jurisdiction by the court below rather than restricting itself to the factum of place of accident. 14. Even otherwise, it is relevant to note that under the amended provisions under Section 166(2) of the Act, the law has been widened enabling the victims to raise their claim in any court in the place where the accident occurred as well as the place where they are residing. 15. 14. Even otherwise, it is relevant to note that under the amended provisions under Section 166(2) of the Act, the law has been widened enabling the victims to raise their claim in any court in the place where the accident occurred as well as the place where they are residing. 15. It is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 166(2) of the Act, which read thus: “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 the effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.” 16. In view of the provisions of Section 20(c) of CPC coupled with the provisions of Section 166 (2) of the Act, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the court below has failed to consider the above provisions while dismissing the claim petitions on the point of jurisdiction and therefore, the common order impugned in all the C.M.As., suffers from legal infirmity and irregularity. Hence, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 17. Accordingly, all the C.M.As are allowed setting aside the orders impugned. However, these matters are remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law, after issuing notices to both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. --X--