Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 33 (CHH)

Guddi Bai Bareth v. Goverdhan Prasad Sharma

2014-01-29

PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2014
ORDER Pritinker Diwaker, J. 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 5.12.2012 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, Distt. Korba (in short "the Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 116/11 whereby the Tribunal while allowing the application as filed by respondent No. 3 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has returned the claim case of the appellants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.10.2011 Devprasad Bareth died in a vehicular accident which took place at main road, Baradwar, Distt. Janjgir-Champa. 3. A claim case was preferred by the appellants/claimants being widow and minor children of the deceased before the Tribunal mentioning therein that they are residing at Village-Chhuri, Tahsil-Katghora, Distt. Korba. Upon receiving notice, after filing its written statement, respondent No. 3 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, inter alia, pleading that the accident had taken place at Baradwar, the claimants are the permanent residents of Village-Budena, Police Station-Pantora, Distt. Janjgir-Champa; the respondents/defendants are also not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal and therefore, the claim case as filed by the claimants be dismissed. 4. Vide impugned order dated 5.12.2012 the application as filed by respondent No. 3 has been allowed and the claim case put forth by the claimants has been returned. It is this order which has been challenged in this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. In the claim case, it has been categorically mentioned by the claimants that they are residing at Village-Chhuri, Tahsil-Katghora, Distt. Korba. Subsection (2) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") reads as under: 166. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. In the claim case, it has been categorically mentioned by the claimants that they are residing at Village-Chhuri, Tahsil-Katghora, Distt. Korba. Subsection (2) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act, 1988") reads as under: 166. Application for compensation- (1) xxx (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. 7. A bare reading of the above section makes it clear that if the claimants are residing at Village-Chhuri within the territorial jurisdiction of Katghora, Distt. Korba, they were right in filing the claim case before the Tribunal at Korba. The Tribunal has definitely committed an illegality while passing the order impugned by ignoring the provisions of Section 166(2) of the Act, 1988. Further, this legal position has been enumerated by the Apex Court in the matters of Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 2009 SC 1022 . 8. Thus considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the aforesaid legal position, the appeal is allowed and the order impugned dated 5.12.2012 is set aside. 9. Considering the fact that the claim case was filed in the year 2011, learned Tribunal at Katghora, Distt. Korba is directed to decide the claim case of the appellants/claimants as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17th February, 2014.