Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 163 (CHH)

RAMPRASAD @ RAMU v. GANESH SAHU

2011-04-26

I.M.QUDDUSI, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

body2011
ORAL ORDER As per Hon'ble Shri I.M. Quddusi, J. :- 1. Heard. 2. The appellant-claimant has filed this miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (for short 'the Act') against the award dated 28.3.2005 passed in Claim Case No.42/2004 whereby the learned 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, FTC, Raipur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') has dismissed the claim application of the appellant herein. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant-claimant was engaged as 'Cleaner/Helper' in the vehicle bearing registration number CG08-ZB-0190. On 24.8.2003 he was coming to Rajnandgaon from Badsa (Maharashtra) and at about 10.00 p.m. when they reached near Tumdibeda, the said vehicle dashed a stationed vehicle parked beside the road as a result the appellant sustained grievous injuries on his hands, ribs, face & head. Report of the accident was lodged in the Police Station Lalbagh, District Rajnandgaon. He was admitted in the hospital and during treatment his leg below the knee was amputated. The appellant-claimant had filed a claim application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.17,25,000/- on the ground that due to amputation of his leg, he has sustained loss of earning capacity and therefore he is entitled to receive the aforesaid amount as compensation. 4. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as five issues and after hearing the parties in the matter dismissed the claim application of the claimant. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as also records of the Claims Tribunal below. 6. Perusal of the impugned award shows that though the Claims Tribunal has not framed any issue regarding jurisdiction but dismissed the claim petition mainly on the ground of jurisdiction by holding that the appellant has not filed any documentary proof regarding his residence. 7. From the description given in the cause title of claim application it is evident that the appellant-claimant has given his address as "Ramprasad @ Ramu, aged 29 years, son of Nandkumar Vishwakarma, resident of Village Rasni, Police Station Aarang, District Raipur". The description of the respondent No.3-Insurance Company has been mentioned as "The New India Insurance Company Limited, through the Divisional Officer, Divisional Office, Kutcheri Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur". It is also not in dispute that I the Divisional Office of the New India Insurance Company Ltd. is in Raipur. 8. The description of the respondent No.3-Insurance Company has been mentioned as "The New India Insurance Company Limited, through the Divisional Officer, Divisional Office, Kutcheri Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur". It is also not in dispute that I the Divisional Office of the New India Insurance Company Ltd. is in Raipur. 8. Section 166 (2) of the Act, 1988 provides 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." 9. A plain reading of the above provision of law would reveal that it has nowhere mentioned in this clause that the claim petition can be filed only before the Claims Tribunal within local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resided at the time of accident or carried on the business. The words 'resides' and 'carries on the business' denote that at the time of filing claim petition before the Claims Tribunal the claimant should be the resident of an area falling within its local jurisdiction. In other words, the 'resides' denotes the present address and not the past address of the Claimant. Thus, in our opinion, dismissal of the claim petition by the Claims Tribunal on the ground of jurisdiction is not proper as in the present case the Claims Tribunal at Raipur is only having jurisdiction to try and entertain the claim petition of the claimant. 10. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned award and remit the matter back to the Claims Tribunal to decide the claim petition afresh on merits. The parties shall be entitled to amend the pleadings or file documents or verify the documents already filed. 11. Needless to mention that this matter is old one and requires expeditious disposal, therefore, the Claims Tribunal is expected to decide the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this award. 12. 11. Needless to mention that this matter is old one and requires expeditious disposal, therefore, the Claims Tribunal is expected to decide the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this award. 12. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal concerned on 16th June, 2011, The Registry is directed to transmit the record of the claims tribunal concerned without further delay. 13. Certified copy as per rules. Case Remanded.