JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgement and award dated 2.1.2012 passed by learned Judge, MACT, Jaipur & Addl. Distt. Judge (FT) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.2.2009 the claimant-appellant and one Raghunath were going by Motor Cycle No. RJ - 01 - 14 M - 5220 from Kishangarh towards Ajmer. When they reached near Anand Hotel, a truck No. GJ-9Y-8676 being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver respondent No. 1, came and hit the motorcycle, and because of this hit, claimant-appellant sustained serious injuries. 3. It was also averred in the claim petition that at the time of accident, the appellant was 26 years of age. He, by working as Supervisor with Bhoomi Project Pvt. Ltd., Kishangarh, Ajmer was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 9500/-. He sustained serious injuries all over this body, specially on his right leg. Because of this crush injury on right leg, it was a imputed below the knee and there were fractures in his right femur and patella bones. He remained admitted in hospital from 25.1.2009 to 8.2.2009 where on 25.1.2009 and 31.1.2009, his operations were done. Even after discharge from the hospital, his treatment remained continued for quite a long period and he remained confined to bad. During the prolonged treatment more than Rs. 2.0 lacs have been spent under different heads like medicines, doctor's fees, hospitalization, nourishing diet, attendants and transportation. As the claimant-appellant still requires continuous treatment, hence he will have to incur much more money on treatment in future. Now because of amputation of leg, the claimant-appellant has come in the category of a permanently disabled and handicapped person. His life has become miserable and he feels difficulty in doing daily activity work. Although as per opinion of the medical board, he has got a permanent disablement of 65%. The respondent No. 1 driver of the truck did not file any reply to the claim petition whereas respondent Nos. 2 & 3 owner and Insurance Company filed their separate reply. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, relevant issues were framed by the Tribunal and certain evidences were examined. 4. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the learned Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition of the appellant on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 2 & 3 owner and Insurance Company filed their separate reply. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, relevant issues were framed by the Tribunal and certain evidences were examined. 4. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the learned Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition of the appellant on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Hence this appeal has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is totally against the law and facts of the case. It has erred in deciding issue No. 3 regarding jurisdiction in a manner that the learned Tribunal is having no jurisdiction to issue this claim petition as claimant-appellant is not resident of its jurisdiction and accident has also not occurred in its jurisdiction. The Tribunal has totally ignored the earlier order dated 14.5.2011 by which on the basis of documents produced by the appellant, the claim petition was considered to be within the jurisdiction of MACT, Jaipur City, Jaipur, so far as the Insurance Company is concerned, except the hearsay evidence of NAW-1, it has failed to prove that the claimant-appellant is not living in Jaipur. Even otherwise the respondent-insurance Company is having its Regional office at Jaipur. In these circumstances, in any manner, the claim petition was within the jurisdiction of MACT, Jaipur city, Jaipur. 6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment reported in 2016 (1) SC 01 titled as Malati Sardar v. National Ins. Company Ltd. & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2016 decided on 5.1.2016 whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court at para No. 14 held as under: "The provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hyper technical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated. There is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the Insurance Company, which is the main contesting parties in such cases, has its business. In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure of justice. Hyper technical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated. There is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the Insurance Company, which is the main contesting parties in such cases, has its business. In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure of justice. Moreover, in view of categorical decision of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra), contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court failed to notice the provision of Section 21 CPC." 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sukh Ram Jatav, the learned counsel for the respondent/s has fairly and honestly does not opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and, but requested that the learned Tribunal may be directed to afford him an opportunity of hearing at the time of deciding the matter on all the issue/s, and also he may be permitted to raise all the objections & grounds as are raised at that time. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award. 9. In my considered view, the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not gone through the facts of the case and passed the impugned award surreptitiously. Thus, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal needs interference by this Court. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by learned Tribunal dated 2.1.2012 is quashed and set as aide with the direction to the learned tribunal to proceed further for deciding the matter in accordance with law on all the issues which have been framed by it. Both the parties request for specific date for appearing before the trial Court, hence they are directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Tribunal on 5.10.2016.Record be sent back immediately.Appeal Allowed - Parties Directed To Appear Before Tribunal On 5.10.2016. *******