Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 536 (UTT)

RAM CHARAN v. SURAT SINGH

2009-10-28

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 11.12.2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-II, Dehradun, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 219 of 2005, whereby said Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to try the case. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.07.2005 Sunil Kumar (deceased) was traveling in vehicle bearing Registration No. U.P.08-3031 from Kaudiyala to Rishikesh. When at about 11.00 a.m., the said vehicle (Bus) reached near Brahmpuri (District Tehri Garhwal), due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the Bus Driver it met with an accident in which the Driver as well as one of the passengers, namely, Sunil Kumar died. The claimants/appellants filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dehradun, claiming that they were the dependants of the deceased who used to earn Rs. 5,000/- per month. The claimants claimed a total sum of Rs. 9,35,000/- from the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company with whom the vehicle was insured. 4. The respondents contested the claim petition before the trial court and filed their written statements. Respondent No. 1 Surat Singh Sajwan admitted the accident but pleaded that excessive amount of compensation is claimed. He further took the plea that the Tribunal at Dehradun has no jurisdiction as the accident had occurred in District Tehri. He further pleaded that vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2 i.e. New India Assurance Company at the time of the accident. Respondent No. 2 on its part filed its written statement denying almost all the allegations in the claim petition. Respondent No. 2 has pleaded that the Driver was not having the valid licence. It has further been pleaded that the vehicle was not driven rashly or negligently. It was also pleaded that the Bus was being plied by one Gulab Singh not by the owner at the time of the accident. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as six issues. The sixth issue reads as under :- Whether Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the claim petition? 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as six issues. The sixth issue reads as under :- Whether Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the claim petition? After hearing the parties, the Tribunal decided only the aforesaid issue in favour of the respondents and dismissed the claim petition on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to decide the present petition. It did not decide other issues. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has committed grave error of law in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that it has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case. Attention of this Court is drawn to Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Sub-section (2) of Section 166 of the Act reads as under :- “(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.” From the aforesaid provision of law it is clear that the claim petition could have been made by the claimants in the present case either before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tehri (the district in which accident had occurred), or before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bijnor (where the claimants reside) or at Dehradun (the district in which defendant carries on his business). 7. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the place of business of respondent No. 2 New India Assurance Company is shown at Rishikesh (which is part of District Dehradun). Apart from this learned counsel for the appellants further drew attention of this Court to the copy of certificate of insurance, in which respondent No. 1, who belongs to Village Baman Patti Bhanpur Tehri Garhwal, has shown his address of Kathaini Bhawan, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. Apart from this learned counsel for the appellants further drew attention of this Court to the copy of certificate of insurance, in which respondent No. 1, who belongs to Village Baman Patti Bhanpur Tehri Garhwal, has shown his address of Kathaini Bhawan, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. As such, it cannot be said that the Tribunal at Dehradun had no jurisdiction to decide the claim petition. 8. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the provision of law quoted above, this Court is of the view that the trial court has wrongly interpreted that the claim petition can be filed at the place of residence of a defendant only when all the defendants reside at one place (in one District). Sub-section (2) of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, nowhere requires said condition. 9. Therefore, for the reasons as discussed above, this appeal deserves to be allowed. The appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and award dated 11.12.2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court-II, Dehradun, in MAC Case No. 219 of 2005 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dehradun, with the direction that the claim petition be decided on merits.