JUDGMENT : S. SUJATHA, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 5-11-2012 passed by the Member, MACT-IV (for short, 'Tribunal') Bagalkot, in MVC Nos.184, 185 and 186 of 2010 whereby the Tribunal returned the claim petitions filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') to the petitioners for presentation before the appropriate Tribunal. 2. Briefly stated the facts are, the claimants filed petitions before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the road traffic accident which occurred on 24-11-2009, while proceeding from Bilagi to their village Arakeri. The claimants alleged actionable negligence on the driver of the auto rickshaw cab bearing Reg.No.KA-29-A-674 for the cause of accident. The claim petitions were preferred before the MACT, Bagalkot contending that the claimants were residing at Bagalkot at the time of filing of the claim petitions. The accident occurred at Bilagi Taluk coming within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bagalkot Tribunal and the respondent No.2 carried business through his agent at Bagalkot. On service of summons, both the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and contested the claim petitions. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed issues. In support of the claim made in the petitions, all the petitioners got examined themselves as PWs1 to 3, Dr. Narayana Muniswami, Dr. H.R. Katti and Dr. Basavaraj Sikkerimath were examined as PWs 4 to 6 and Exs.P1 to 174 got marked. On behalf of the respondents, Respondent No.2 got examined 2 witnesses as RW1 and 2 got marked Exs.R1 to R5. At the time of the arguments, learned counsel for the insurer/respondent No.2 argued that the claimants specifically admitted in their cross-examination that all of them are the residents of Arakeri village, Bilagi Taluk and the accident occurred at Bilagi, as such the MACT, Bagalkot has no jurisdiction to try the petitions. On the basis of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the insurer, additional issue was framed as under: Whether the respondent No.2 proves that this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to try these claim petitions? The Tribunal answered the additional issue based on the material evidence available on record and held that the Tribunal at Bagalkot has no jurisdiction to try the claim petitions. The Tribunal answered the additional issue based on the material evidence available on record and held that the Tribunal at Bagalkot has no jurisdiction to try the claim petitions. Accordingly, the claim petitions filed under Section 166 of the Act were returned to the petitioners to present the same before the appropriate Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants are in appeal. 3. Sri. Siddappa Sajjan, learned counsel appearing for the claimants assailing the impugned judgment and order would contend that the Tribunal after recording the evidence of the parties and at the stage of final arguments, ought not to have returned the claim petitions to present the same before the appropriate Tribunal. The claimants are permanent residents of Arakeri village, working as labourers at Bagalkot at the time of filing claim petitions. Though respondent No.2 issued insurance policy from Hubli office, was carrying on business through Bagalkot office. Considering this vital aspect, the Tribunal would have proceeded with the claim petitions in accordance with law. Thus, learned counsel seeks to set-aside the impugned order and remand the matter to proceed with the claim petitions in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, Sri. S.K. Kayakamath, learned counsel appearing for the insurer placing reliance on Section 166(2) of the Act, would contend that the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal has to be determined in terms of the said provisions wherein it is specifically provided that the jurisdiction would be at the option of the claimant, (i) either to the claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, (ii) to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business and (iii) within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the claimant resides. The Tribunal has rightly analysed the factual matrix of the case under Section 166 (2) of the Act while considering the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the claim petitions. Indisputably, respondent No.2/Insurance company is neither residing nor carrying business within the jurisdiction of the Bagalkot, as such, the Tribunal was right in returning the petitions for presentation before the appropriate Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. Indisputably, respondent No.2/Insurance company is neither residing nor carrying business within the jurisdiction of the Bagalkot, as such, the Tribunal was right in returning the petitions for presentation before the appropriate Tribunal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. It is evident that the Tribunal framed additional issue regarding territorial jurisdiction to try the claim petitions, subsequent to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on this point, at the time of final arguments, after recording the evidence of both the parties. It is well settled legal position that the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal has to be decided at the first available opportunity. Any objection if would have been raised by the Insurance Company, an additional issue would have been framed before recording of the evidence. At this juncture, it would be beneficial to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 244 : ( AIR 2009 SC 1022 ) wherein it has been categorically held that 'we cannot also lose sight of the fact that the appellant herein was a labourer. The justness or otherwise of the amount of compensation has not been disputed before us. If the High Court-judgment is to be complied with, the appellant would again have to initiate another proceeding either at Bareilly or Gurgaon or at Delhi or at Jabalpur. The same evidence would have to be rendered once again.' Observing thus, held that there was no failure of justice even there was merit in the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction. In the present case, the evidence of the parties was recorded. If the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, now at this stage, if to be confirmed, the claimants would again have to initiate another proceedings either at Bilagi or Hubli, the same proceedings would have to be rendered once again. Section 21 of the CPC enunciates that no objection as to the jurisdiction should be allowed by the appellate or revisional Court, unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and unless there was consequent failure of justice. Section 21 of the CPC enunciates that no objection as to the jurisdiction should be allowed by the appellate or revisional Court, unless such objection was taken in the Court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and unless there was consequent failure of justice. Principles underlying is when cause had been tried by the Court on merits and evidence recorded, it cannot be returned to present before the appropriate Tribunal holding that the Tribunal which recorded the evidence had no territorial jurisdiction, unless it had resulted in failure of justice. It is well established legal position that the policy of the legislature has been to treat the objection of the jurisdiction as technical, unless there has been a prejudice on the merits. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others reported in (2016)3 SCC 43 : ( AIR 2016 SC 247 ) has held as under: "16. The provisions 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 party 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 of C.P.C.' 8. It is undisputed fact that the claimants are the residents of Arakeri village and at the time of presentation of the claim petitions, they being labourers were residing at Bagalkot. In such circumstances, the claim petitions were filed before the MACT, Bagalkot. It is also not in dispute that the service of notice was served on respondent No.2 on the office situated at Hubli. In such circumstances, the claim petitions were filed before the MACT, Bagalkot. It is also not in dispute that the service of notice was served on respondent No.2 on the office situated at Hubli. The respondents having participated in the proceedings by filing written statements cross-examining the claimants and leading evidence on their part, no failure of justice would be caused at this stage, the Tribunal rendering the judgment after hearing the arguments, on the other hand, it would cause hardship or prejudice to both the parties, if the claimants are directed to represent the claim petitions before the Tribunal having jurisdiction to try the suit since entire exercise has to be repeated by both the parties, which would be duplication of work consuming public time. Keeping these aspects in the mind and in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra, the impugned judgment and order is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal, MACT, Bagalkot to proceed further with the claim petitions in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties. 9. Since the contesting respondent is represented through its counsel, it would be proper to direct the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 6-2-2017 without waiting for any notice and shall receive further orders. However, it is made clear that the claimants shall not be entitled to interest from 5-11-2012 till 6-2-2017, in the event they succeed in the claim petitions. 10. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed in terms of the above.