JUDGMENT [Per : Hon'ble J.C.S. Rawat, J.] 1. This appeal, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed against the award dated 31.05.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Addl. District Judge (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal'), Nainital, in M.A.C.P. No. 245/2004, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 4,20,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum to the claimants against the United India Insurance Company Ltd. - appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants - respondent nos. 1 to 3 had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, Nainital alleging therein that on 30.04.2004 the deceased - Hassan Khan took the truck to the village Hatua for loading the paddy husk and the truck was parked on the extreme roadside. The deceased was standing on the opposite side of the road. At about 11 am, a Bus No. UP 26-8216 coming from side of Bithaura rashly and negligently dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained severe injuries on his person. The deceased - Hassan Khan was shifted to District Hospital, Pilibhit but he could not survive. An FIR of the said accident was lodged at police station Gajraula, District Pilibhit. It was further alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was doing the business of paddy and wheat chaff. He was aged about 26 years and was earning Rs. 6,000/- p.m. at the time of incident. Hence, the claim had been preferred by the dependents of the deceased. An amount of Rs. 26,00,000/- has been claimed as compensation. 3. The opposite parties filed their written statements and contested the case. The respondent No. 4 - Arvind Kumar Gupta, who is the owner of the offending vehicle had denied the accident. He further stated that his bus No. UP 26-8216 has wrongly been implicated in the case. His bus was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Pilibhit and as such he was not liable to pay the compensation. The liability, if any, was of the insurer. He had also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal, Nainital. He further stated that his bus No. UP 26-8216 has wrongly been implicated in the case. His bus was insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Pilibhit and as such he was not liable to pay the compensation. The liability, if any, was of the insurer. He had also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal, Nainital. The United India Insurance Company had also filed the written statement in which it had been alleged that the Tribunal, Nainital has got no territorial jurisdiction for disposal of this matter as neither the accident took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Nainital's Tribunal nor any party is living or carrying on their business within its territorial jurisdiction. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues in the case and ultimately, the learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the Tribunal, Nainital has got territorial jurisdiction to dispose of the matter because the Insurance Company has its branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of Nainital Tribunal. It was further held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Bus, due to which the deceased sustained the injuries on his person and died. It was further held that the driver of the Bus had a valid driving licence at the material time and the offending Bus had also a valid registration, permit and the fitness certificate at the relevant time. The learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month or say Rs. 36,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal, after deducting 1/3rd income for personal expenses had fixed the dependency of the deceased as Rs. 24,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal had applied the multiplier of "17", the amount comes Rs. 4,08,000/-. Apart this, Rs. 5000/- for the consortium and Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses had been awarded to the claimants. Thus, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 4,20,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimants against the appellant - The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 5. Feeling aggrieved by this, the Insurance Company - appellant has preferred the present appeal. 6. The main controversy involved in this appeal is that whether the Tribunal, Nainital was well within its jurisdiction to dispose of the claim petition of the claimants or not. Ltd. 5. Feeling aggrieved by this, the Insurance Company - appellant has preferred the present appeal. 6. The main controversy involved in this appeal is that whether the Tribunal, Nainital was well within its jurisdiction to dispose of the claim petition of the claimants or not. Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal, Nainital had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and hear the claim petition filed by the claimants in view of the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'Act'). It was further contended that the accident took place in District Pilibhit, U.P. and the claimants are residing at village Lalaurikhera, Tehsil & District Pilibhit, U.P. The claim petition shows that the owner of the offending Bus also belongs to the District Pilibhit, U.P. It is also admitted that at the time of accident the Bus no. UP 26-8216 was insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. at Pilibhit Branch, U.P. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further contended that the learned Tribunal had erred in holding that the Tribunal, Nainital has got territorial jurisdiction to dispose of the claim petition. Learned counsel for the respondents (claimants) has supported the judgment of the learned Tribunal, Nainital. It was further contended on behalf of the claimants that since the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has its branch office at Haldwani, hence the Tribunal, Nainital can entertain the claim petition. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the Insurance Company had its branch office at Haldwani, but the vehicle in question had not been insured through the branch office, Haldwani. The vehicle was insured with the branch office, Pilibhit, U.P. and as such the contract of insurance was executed either at Chennai - the headquarter of the United India Insurance Company or at its branch office Pilibhit, U.P. The Tribunal, Nainital has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitition. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that Pilibhit is adjoining to the district of U.S. Nagar and the distance from Pilibhit to U.S. Nagar is nearer than the distance from Pilibhit to Nainital. Therefore, it cannot be held that the claimants had any convenience to file the claim petition after travelling from Pilibhit to Nainital. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that Pilibhit is adjoining to the district of U.S. Nagar and the distance from Pilibhit to U.S. Nagar is nearer than the distance from Pilibhit to Nainital. Therefore, it cannot be held that the claimants had any convenience to file the claim petition after travelling from Pilibhit to Nainital. Section 166(2) of the Act is quoted below :- "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." 7. According to the aforesaid provision, every claim petition 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. In the case in hand, it is admitted that the accident took place in the District Pilibhit, U.P. The claimants and owner of the vehicle are residing at the District Pilibhit, U.P. It is also admitted that at the time of accident the offending Bus No. UP 26-8216 was insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. at Pilibhit Branch, U.P. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, we could not understand the convenience to the claimants to file claim petition before the Tribunal at Nainital. Merely having an office of the Insurance Company at Haldwani within the District Nainital is not sufficient to file the claim petition at Nainital. As a matter of fact, the contract between the Insurance Company and the owner of the offending Bus took place at Pilibhit. As such, the main defendant (Insurance Company) is at Pilibhit. Admittedly, the claimants and the owner of the vehicle are residing in the District Pilibhit. As a matter of fact, the contract between the Insurance Company and the owner of the offending Bus took place at Pilibhit. As such, the main defendant (Insurance Company) is at Pilibhit. Admittedly, the claimants and the owner of the vehicle are residing in the District Pilibhit. The accident took place in the District Pilibhit, which comes within the jurisdiction of M.A.C.T. Pilibhit. Admittedly, in this case the claimants are residing within the jurisdiction of the M.A.C.T., Pilibhit which is more close to his place of residence than the M.A.C.T., Nainital which is a distant place. 8. Sub-section (2) of Section 166 was added by the Amending Act 54 of 1994. While deciding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under sub-section (2) of section 166 of the M.V. Act, the intention of the Parliament has to be seen. Statement of Objects and Reasons to Amending Act 54 of 1994 are as follows :- 1. .............................. 2. .............................. 3. .............................. 4. .............................. 5. 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 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, at the option of the claimant. The Bill also makes necessary provision to give effect to the said recommendation. 9. The aim and object of introducing this Amendment is quite obvious that the Parliament has an intention in their mind to mitigate the difficulties of the claimants who seek the compensation for the death of the deceased. It was noticed by the Parliament that the persons, while travelling to other States or other places, met an accident and the families of the deceased had to file the claim petitions before the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the accident took place. In such cases, it was noticed that if a person belonging to Southern India and posted in extreme Northern India met an accident, the family members of the deceased had to file the claim petition where the deceased died in the accident. Sometimes, they do not prefer to file claim petitions because they have to travel and they have to make a heavy expenditure in the litigation. Sometimes, they do not prefer to file claim petitions because they have to travel and they have to make a heavy expenditure in the litigation. The Parliament while keeping in mind the above has added sub-section (2) of Section 166 M.V. Act in order to mitigate the difficulties and hardships of the claimants. Perusal of section 166(2) of the M.V. Act clearly reveals that the general principle is that the claim petition would be filed in the district where the accident occurred. There are two exceptions of the above general principle. First is that the claim petition may be filed by the claimants before the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business. Second is that the claim petition may also be filed by the claimant before the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant (respondent) resides. Perusal of the exception 1 clearly reveals that the Parliament had given a wide scope to the claimants to file the claim petitions where the claimants reside or where they carry on business. Meaning thereby, the claimants have three options to file the claim petitions either at the place where the accident occurred or where the claimants are residing or where the claimants are carrying out the business. The second exception of the above general principle is that the claimant may also file claim petition where the defendant (respondent) resides. This exception did not provide a right to the claimant to file the claim petition against the defendant (respondent) where the defendant (respondent) carries out the business. In the case in hand, the insurance policy was issued by the branch office, Pilibhit and the headquarter of the Insurance Company is in Chennai. Thus, the claimants had no right to file the claim petition where the defendants (respondents) are carrying the business, even though their offices are situated in such area where the accident took place. If the defendant (respondent) carries out on business in different places the claimant has no right to file the claim petition within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal where the defendant (respondent) carries on business. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal, Nainital had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition of the claimants. 10. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal, Nainital had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition of the claimants. 10. Learned Tribunal, Nainital had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Dolly Kantibhai Patel vs. Balu Tukaram & others 2003 ACJ Supreme Court p/227. This petition was for transferring the claim petition from the Tribunal, Nasik to Vododara (Gujarat) on the ground that there was none else at Nasik to prosecute the claim petition as the claimant had gone to abroad. The Apex Court transferred the petition and observed that it would be convenient to the Insurance Company because it has a branch office in the transferred district. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while transferring the claim petition has also seen the convenience of the parties. Meaning thereby, the claim petition has not been transferred on the ground that the Insurance Company had a branch office at the transferred place. Therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Learned Tribunal had also entertained the claim petition on the ground that there were 9 cases of similar nature in which the accident took at Pilibhit, and claimants & owner of the vehicle were residing outside the district of Nainital. The claimants had stated that they opted to file the petition before Nainital's Tribunal because the District Nainital is a hill district having few pendency and the matter would be decided in the Nainital's Tribunal expeditiously. The Tribunal further held that the Tribunals situated in the hills are disposing the matter very quickly and the High Court of Uttaranchal also decides the matter quickly, whereas if they would file the petition in U.P. the claimant has to wait for 20 years for getting the compensation. On the basis of this, the learned Tribunal had held that the Tribunal, Nainital has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. It is a well settled position of law that the claim petition can only be entertained and filed before a court having the territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. The claimant cannot take the matter to different State on the pretext that his case would be disposed of expeditiously in that State or District without having the territorial jurisdiction. It is a well settled position of law that the claim petition can only be entertained and filed before a court having the territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. The claimant cannot take the matter to different State on the pretext that his case would be disposed of expeditiously in that State or District without having the territorial jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the Tribunal, Nainital had got no territorial jurisdiction to dispose of the matter, the claimants may be given liberty to file a fresh claim petition before the competent Tribunal. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the M.A.C.T., Nainital has erred in holding that the Tribunal, Nainital has the jurisdiction to dispose of the matter. 13. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Therefore, the award dated 31.05.2006 passed by the M.A.C.T., Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 245/2004 (Smt. Bholi Begum & others Vs. Arvind Kumar Gupta & others) is set aside. However, the claimants are at liberty to file a fresh claim petition before the competent Tribunal. 14. No order as to costs.