Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 448 (UTT)

Nafees Ahamd v. Navazis Ali and others

2007-08-17

RAJESH TANDON

body2007
JUDGMENT Heard Ms. Seem a Sirohi for the appellant and Sri Lalit Sharma for respondent no.1 and Sri Prabhat Pandey, for respondent no. 2. 2. Present appeal has been filed by the claimant appellant against the judgment and award dated 3-8-2004 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal, dismissing the claim petition of the claimant under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. Briefly stated the claimant-appellant has preferred a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on 2-9-2003. 4. According to the claimant he was going to Haldwani from Nazibabad by vehicle No. UP 20B/8512. The vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. As soon as the vehicle reached near Rampur Crossing, the vehicle met with accident and collided with another standing vehicle, due to which claimant sustained injuries and his left leg became fractured. 5. Both the opposite parties have contested the claim and have filed their respective written statements. Both the opposite parties have alleged that the Claims Tribunal of Pauri Garhwal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the accident has taken place in the territorial limits of District Nainital. 6. On the pleadings to the parties following preliminary issue was framed by the Claims Tribunal: Whether this Tribunal has no jurisdiction as alleged in para 7 of the written statement of O.P. No.1? 7. The Claims Tribunal has decided the preliminary issue vide impugned order and has held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal has no jurisdiction in view of the amendment made in the year, 2001 in the Motor Vehicles Act, and has decided the issue in affirmative. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed. 8. Feeling aggrieved the present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant. 9. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed. 8. Feeling aggrieved the present appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant. 9. Sub section (2) of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was enacted in the original Act, to the following effect: "(2) Every application under sub section (1) shall be made to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed: Provided that where any 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." 10. The above original sub Section (2) of Section 166 was amended by Act No. 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14-11-1994 and was substituted to the following effect: "[(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.. ... incurred 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 any 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]. " 11. Later on by way of Repealing and Amending Act No. 30 of 2001, sub section (2) of Section 166 of the Act has been repealed. 12. The Claims Tribunal has held that sub section (2) of section 166 of the Act, which provides local jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal, has been repealed by Act No. 30 of 2001 with effect from 3-11-2001, and by this repealing Act the original sub section (2) of Section 166 which was substituted by Act No. 54 of 1994 (w.e.f. 14-11-1994) has been restored from 3-9-2001. Meaning thereby that now the claim petition can only be filed in the Claims Tribunal in whose local jurisdiction the accident occurs. 13. The view taken by the Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal regarding effect of Amending Act No. 30 of 2001 does not provide a correct interpretation of the provision of section 166 (2) of the Act. 14. Meaning thereby that now the claim petition can only be filed in the Claims Tribunal in whose local jurisdiction the accident occurs. 13. The view taken by the Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal regarding effect of Amending Act No. 30 of 2001 does not provide a correct interpretation of the provision of section 166 (2) of the Act. 14. Section 166 is a procedural law and the intention of the Legislature is very clear to simplify the procedure and not to deprive legitimate claim on account of technicalities of the jurisdiction. Earlier when sub section (3) of Section 166, prescribed the limitation for filing of the claim petition, was omitted by Act No. 54 of 1994, then the Tribunal has to entertain a claim petition without taking note of the date of which such accident had taken place. The claim petitions cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation. 15. In the same way and with the similar intention, sub section (2) of Section 166 has been omitted vide Act No. 30 of 2001 (w.e.f. 3-9-2001) and, therefore, the Tribunal has to entertain a Claim petition presented before it, without taking note of the place of accident. 16. On account of amendment vide Act No. 30 of 2001, sub section (2) of section 166 of the M.V. Act has been completely omitted and nothing has been substituted in its place, and now a claimant can file a claim petition at any time and before any Claims Tribunal at the option of the claimant. I have gone through Act No. 30 of 2001 and there is no mention that after deletion of sub section (2) of Section 166, the enactment in the Act, provided before 14-11-1994 shall be restored in its place. ' 17. The Apex Court in the case Dhannalal V5. D.P. Vijayvargiya (1996) 4 see 652, has made observations regarding the effect of omission of sub section (3) of Section 166 by section 53 of the Motor Vehicles' (Amendment) Act, 1994, which came into force w.e.f. 14-11-1994 and has held that the effect of the Amending Act is that w.e.f. 14-11-1994 there is no limitation for filing claims before the Tribunal in respect of any accident. The Apex Court has observed as under: Before the scope of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act is examined, it may be pointed out that the aforesaid sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act has been omitted by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came in force w.e.f. 14-11-1994. The effect of the Amending Act is that w.e.f. 14-11-1994 there is no limitation for filing claims before the Tribunal in respect of and accident. It can be said that Parliament realized the grave injustice and injury which was being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims who died in accidents by rejecting their claim petitions only on ground of limitation. 18. Similar is the position of omission and deletion of sub section (2) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. There will be similar effect of Repealing and Amending Act 2001 (Act No. 30 of 2001 ) on sub section (2) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 19. A Division Bench of this Court in A.O. No. 520 of 2006 United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Bholi Begum & others, decided on 8-12-2006* has observed as under: "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 defendants (respondent) where the defendant (respondent) carries out the business. " 20. In the present case the claimant is resident of Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal and the accident had taken place within the limits of District Nainital, therefore, in view of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. vs. Bholi Begum & others (supra), the claimant has rightly filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal. 21. In view of above, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal has erred in law by holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition in which the accident is said to have taken place in District Nainital. 22. 21. In view of above, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal has erred in law by holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition in which the accident is said to have taken place in District Nainital. 22. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 3-8-2004 is hereby set aside. The claims Tribunal is directed to entertain the claim petition and decide the same within three months after the receipt of the certified copy of this order. 23. No order as to costs.