Judgment J.C.S. Rawat, J. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award dated 05-08-2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/III Fast Track Court, Nainital (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal'), Nainital in MAC.P. No. 221/2005, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 5,12,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum to the claimants against the New India Assurance Company Ltd.-appellant. 2. The claimant have preferred the Cross Objection bearing No. 15035/2006 for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. 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 09-06-2005 at about 7 p.m. Kishan Lal @ Kishan Pal (deceased) was going on his motorcycle bearing No. UP-25 S/6009 from Pilibhit to his village Sagalpur Mahuaa, Police Station Bhojupura, District BareillY. When he reached near Jatipur, police station Jahanabad, District Pilibhit, U.P. a motorcycle No. UP 26C/4292 coming from the opposite side rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his person and died on the spot. It was further alleged that the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of accident and he was earning a sum Rs. 2250/- per month as salary and he used to earn Rs. 3000/- per month from private tuitions. As such, the total income was Rs. 5250/- per month. Thus, the claim petition was filed by the dependants of the deceased for the compensation in lieu of his death. 4. The opposite parties filed their written statements and contested the case. The respondent No. 4-Rajpal Singh, who is the owner of Motorcycle bearing No. UP26C/4292 had denied the accident. He further stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. It was further stated that the claimants have not impleaded the Insurance Company by which the motorcycle of the deceased was insured. Rajpal Singh has further stated in his written statement that his motorcycle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. 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. Rajpal Singh has further stated in his written statement that his motorcycle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. 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 New India Assurance Company had also filed the written statement in which it had been alleged that• the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. It was further pleaded that the motorcycle of the deceased was being plied against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the deceased was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. 5. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues in the case and ultimately, the learned Tribunal after hearing the parties had come to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle No. UP26C/4292 due to which the deceased sustained the injuries on his person and died at the spot. It was further held that the deceased was not driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently at the time of accident and, as such, there was no need to implead the insurer of the deceased's motorcycle. So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, it was held that the Tribunal Nainital has got the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and the claim petition can be filed at the option of the claimants under section 166(2) of the Act. The offending motorcycle (bearing No. UP26C/4292) was insured with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. at the time of accident and it was not being plied against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The. learned Tribunal had assessed the age of the deceased as 22 years at the time of accident. The income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 3250/- per month or say Rs. 39,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal, after deducting 1/3rd income for personal expenses had fixed the dependency of the claimants as Rs. 26,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal had applied the multiplier of "17", the amount comes Rs: 4,42,000/-. Apart from this, Rs. 15,000/- for the loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- for love and affection, Rs. 20,000/- for future benefit of promotion and Rs. 26,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal had applied the multiplier of "17", the amount comes Rs: 4,42,000/-. Apart from this, Rs. 15,000/- for the loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- for love and affection, Rs. 20,000/- for future benefit of promotion and Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses were awarded to the claimants. Thus, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 5,12,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimants against the appellant-The New India Assurance Company Ltd. 6. Feeling aggrieved by this, the Insurance Company-appellant has preferred the present appeal. The claimants have preferred a Cross Objection for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal, Nainital had to 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 the District Pilibhit, U.P. and the claimants are residing at village Sagalpur Mahuaa, P.S. Bhojupura, District Bareilly, U.P. The claim petition shows that Rajpal Singh, who is the owner of offending Motorcycle No. UP26C-4292 belong~ to the District Pilibhit, U.P. It is also admitted that at the time of accident the offending motorcycle (UP26C4292) was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. at Pilibhit Branch w.e.f 07-02-2005 to 06-02-2006. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further contended that the 'earned 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 on the claimants that since the New India Assurance Company 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 the headquarter of the New India Assurance Company or at its branch office Pilibhit, U.P. The Tribunal, Nainital has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. 8. The vehicle was insured with the branch office, Pilibhit, U.P. and as such the contract of insurance was executed either at the headquarter of the New India Assurance Company or at its branch office Pilibhit, U.P. The Tribunal, Nainital has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. 8. It has been mentioned at serial no. 23(6) of the claim petition that the claimant no.2-Mitthan Lal carries on his occupation in District Nainital, as such, the Tribunal Nainital has got the jurisdiction to decide the claim petition. In reply of the said pleadings, the Insurance Company has specifically denied. The claimants in support of the claim petition examined Javitri, the widow of the deceased, as PW1, who has stated as follows : 9. Perusal of the aforesaid statement it cannot be inferred that the claimant no. 2 Mitthan Lal, the father of the deceased had been residing or carrying the business within the local limits of District Nainital. Thus, the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that it has got the jurisdiction to decide the claim petition. 10. Section 166(2) of the Act provides as under : "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. " 11. 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 Claimants 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. According to the claim petition, the claimants have been residing at Thana Bhojupura, District Bareilly, U.P. and the owner of the vehicle is the resident of District Pilibhit. It is also admitted that at the time of accident the offending motorcycle was insured with the appellant-insurer at Pilibhit Branch, UP 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 motorcycle took place at Pilibhit. As such, the main defendant (Insurance Company) is at Pilibhit. Admittedly, the claimants are residing in District Bareilly and the owner of the vehicle is residing in District Pilibhit. The accident took place in the District Pilibhit, which comes within the jurisdiction of MAC.T. Pilibhit. Admittedly, in this case the claimants and owner of the offending vehicle are residing within the jurisdiction of the M.A.C.T., Bareilly or Pilibhit which is more close to his place of residence than the MAC.T., Nainital which is a distant place. 12. 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. 13. The Bill also makes necessary provision to give effect to the said recommendation. 13. 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 traveling 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 the 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. 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 MV. 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 a1so file claim petition where the defendant (respondent) resides. 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 a1so file claim petition where the defendant (respondent) resides. This exception did not provide a right to the claimants to file the claim petition against the defendants (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 areas 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. 14. 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. 15. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Therefore, the award dated 05-08-2006 passed by the MAC.T., Nainital in MAC.P. No. 221/2005 is set aside. The Cross Objection filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is disposed of accordingly. However, the claimants are at liberty to file a fresh claim petition before the competent Tribunal. 16. No order as to costs.