Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1838 (PNJ)

Kamlesh v. Satish Kumar

2011-10-03

AJAY K.MITTAL

body2011
JUDGMENT AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.1.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short “the Tribunal”) whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that on 29.10.2008, Raghbir Singh came to meet his brother-in-law Sohan Lal on his motorcycle. At about 5.00 PM, Raghbir Singh started on his motorcycle and Sohan Lal started on his moped to go to his village. At about 5.30 PM when both of them crossed the drain of village and were towards their village side and the motorcyclist was at the back of the moped at some distance, then offending vehicle driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner came from village side and hit into the moped of Sohan Lal, as a result of which Sohan Lal fell on the road and received serious injuries on his head. On 29.10.2008, Sohan Lal succumbed to his injuries received in the accident. FIR No. 362 was registered on 30.10.2008 under Sections 279/304-A of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No.1 in this regard. The petitioners filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation on account of death of Sohan Lal in a motor vehicular accident being legal heirs of the deceased. The respondents filed their respective replies raising various preliminary objections. The respondents also refuted the averments made in the claim petition. The Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter the case was fixed for evidence. The parties led their respective evidence. It was held vide award dated 20.1.2011 that Tribunal at Hisar did not have jurisdiction and the petition was ordered to be returned to the petitioners. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. 4. The Tribunal has non-suited the petitioners' claim on the ground that the Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction to try the claim petition and had returned the same. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. 4. The Tribunal has non-suited the petitioners' claim on the ground that the Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction to try the claim petition and had returned the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short “the Act”), the claimant can file a claim petition either in the Court within whose jurisdiction the accident had taken place or where the respondent resides or even where the claimant resides. According to the learned counsel, the claimant is residing with her brother in village Dhani Garan, Sub Tehsil Barwala, District Hisar after the death of her husband and as such the Tribunal at Hisar had the jurisdiction. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the Tribunal. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. Section 166 of the Act reads thus:- “166. Application for compensation.-(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. (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. (3) XX XX XX (4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.” 7. A plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 166 of the Act shows that the claim petition can be filed at either of the three places, namely; (i) The place within whose jurisdiction the accident had taken place; (ii) where the claimants reside or carries on business; or (iii) where the defendants reside. 8. Ordinarily, the Tribunal where the claimants normally had been residing or carrying on business would be the place for determining the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. However, if there is change in the place of residence after the death as in the present case, the Tribunal where the claimants had been residing at the time of filing claim petition would also have the jurisdiction. The said interpretation is in consonance with the legislative intent with which the provision had been incorporated. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has shown that after the death of the husband of claimant No.1 Smt Kamlesh, she was residing with her brother at village Dhani Garan, Sub Tehsil Barwala, Tehsil and District Hisar though she had a ration card, voter card and identity card at village Malhar, Tehsil and District Fatehabad which were made before the death of her husband who had died in a vehicular accident which has resulted into the filing of the claim petition. He also referred to the statement of Smt. Kamlesh where she had stated that she was living with her brother and that the residence at District Fatehabad was her matrimonial home before the death of her husband and no longer resides there after his death. He also referred to the statement of Smt. Kamlesh where she had stated that she was living with her brother and that the residence at District Fatehabad was her matrimonial home before the death of her husband and no longer resides there after his death. Once, a claimant is residing within District Hisar, the Tribunal at Hisar had the jurisdiction to entertain and try the claim petition. 10. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and the order dated 20.1.2011 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal who shall proceed further in accordance with law and expedite the disposal of the claim petition on merits. Petition allowed.