JUDGMENT : Lok Pal Singh, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 31.10.2008 passed by III F.T.C./Additional District Judge, Haridwar in M.A.C.T. No.57 of 2005, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 19.10.2001 Jai Pal Singh (deceased) was going from Madhuban Police Complex to Karnal Chowk by riding a cycle on the left hand side of the unmetalled road. At about 6.45 pm, when he reached near Premium Thread Factory Karnal, on Panipat to Karnal G.T. Road, a Maruti Car bearing Registration no.PB-21-0005 being driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.2, came from behind and hit the cycle of Jai Pal Singh by going on extreme left side of the road. As a result, Jai Pal Singh fell down and suffered multiple, simple and grievous injuries including head injury and was taken to Civil Hospital Karnal from the spot where he succumbed to the injuries. With these averments, the claimants, who are father, children and wife of the deceased, filed the claim petition before Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Haridwar. In the claim petition, the claimants stated that the deceased was aged 49 years and was enjoying very good health. He was employed as Assistant Sub Inspector with Haryana Police and was getting salary @ Rs. 9880/- per month. All the claimants were solely dependents on the income of deceased. Hence, they claimed a sum of Rs. 25 Lacs as compensation from the opposite party along with interest @ 18 % per annum. 3. Opposite party no.3, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed its written statement, denying most of the averments made in the claim petition. In additional pleas, it has stated that the claim petition has been filed without any motive. It also stated that on the date and time of alleged accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license, permit, registration, etc. due to which the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. It has also stated that the claimants have not annexed any document, post-mortem report, etc. with the claim petition. 4. Opposite party no.2, driver of offending vehicle, also filed his written statement. In the written statement, he denied the allegation that he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. It has also stated that the claimants have not annexed any document, post-mortem report, etc. with the claim petition. 4. Opposite party no.2, driver of offending vehicle, also filed his written statement. In the written statement, he denied the allegation that he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. He stated that he was driving the vehicle at a very moderate speed and the accident occurred due to fault of deceased, who was riding his cycle on the wrong side. He also stated that he was having valid driving license and that the vehicle was insured with opposite party no.1. 5. On the basis of pleading of the parties, learned Tribunal framed following issues: (i) Whether on 19.10.2001 driver of Maruti Car bearing Registration no.PB- 21-0005 while driving the car in a very rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased Jai Pal Singh, causing death of deceased? (ii) Whether driver of Maruti Car bearing Registration no.PB-21-0005 was having valid driving license and registration certificate of the vehicle? (iii) Whether the vehicle in question was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.? (iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation? If yes, then how much and from which party? (v) Whether the Tribunal is having jurisdiction to hear and decide the claim petition? 6. Thereafter, the parties led their evidence. In documentary evidence, the claimants filed affidavit of Smt. Prakasho Devi, report 7C1/1 to 7C 1/3, paper no.8C1/1, 8C1/2, charge-sheet and list of evidence 27C, pay slip, copy of First Information Report, Insurance copy of the vehicle, certified copy of charge-sheet, date of birth certificate of the deceased, postmortem report. In oral evidence, claimants got examined P.W.1 Smt. Santosh Devi, P.W.2 Sulkhan Singh, P.W.3 Dr. Kuldeep Singh, P.W.4 Hari Singh, P.W.5 Ashwini Kumar and P.W.6 Sohan Singh. Opposite party no.3 Oriental Insurance Company did not file any oral or documentary evidence. Opposite party no.2, Dilbagh Singh, driver and owner of offending vehicle, also did not file any documentary evidence, but in oral evidence, got examined himself as D.W.1. 7. After recording the evidence of the parties and upon hearing, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. 9. Mr. 7. After recording the evidence of the parties and upon hearing, learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on file. 9. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/claimants submitted that the Tribunal has committed grave error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. He further submitted that admittedly the accident had taken place at Haryana but after death of Jai Pal Singh, his wife and children (claimants herein) started residing with her relative at 40 Battalion P.A.C. Colony, Jwalapur, District Haridwar but this fact was not considered by the Tribunal. To buttress his argument, learned counsel referred a judgment of Hon’le Apex Court rendered in the case of Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 244 . 10. Per contra, Mr. M.K. Goyal supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal and submitted that as the accident had taken place within the territorial limits of Haryana as such the Tribunal at Haryana had the jurisdiction to decide the claim petition and the claim petition has rightly been rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 11. After hearing the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the sole question for consideration before this Court is whether the M.A.C.T. Haridwar had no jurisdiction to decide the claim. The issue involved is purely legal in nature. To resolve the issue involved, a reference may be made to the judgment supplied by learned counsel for the appellant [Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, 2009 (2) SCC 244 ]. Paragraph nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 20 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under:- 11. To resolve the issue involved, a reference may be made to the judgment supplied by learned counsel for the appellant [Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, 2009 (2) SCC 244 ]. Paragraph nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 20 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under:- 11. Section 166 (2) of the Act reads as under :- "66 -Application for compensation (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." The said Act is a special statute. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal having regard to the terminologies used therein must be held to be wider than the civil court. 12. A claimant has a wide option. Residence of the claimant also determines jurisdiction of the Tribunal. What would be a residence of a person would, however, depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. 13. A claimant has a wide option. Residence of the claimant also determines jurisdiction of the Tribunal. What would be a residence of a person would, however, depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. 14. The High Court unforturnately in its judgment did not assign sufficient or cogent reason as to why the Tribunal committed any illegality in holding that he had the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. 15. No doubt the Tribunal must exercise jurisdiction having regard to the ingredients laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 166 of the Act. 14. The High Court unforturnately in its judgment did not assign sufficient or cogent reason as to why the Tribunal committed any illegality in holding that he had the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. 15. No doubt the Tribunal must exercise jurisdiction having regard to the ingredients laid down under sub-section (2) of Section 166 of the Act. We are not unmindful of the fact that in terms of Section 169 of the Act, the Tribunal, subject to any rules, may follow a summary procedure and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure under the Act have a limited application but in terms of the rules ‘save and except' any specific provision made in that behalf, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply. Even otherwise the principles laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure may be held to be applicable in a case of this nature. 16. We say so because ordinarily an appellate court shall not, having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, entertain an appeal on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the court below unless he has been prejudiced thereby. Other respondents did not raise any question of jurisdiction. Although one witness each had been examined on behalf of the truck owner and owner of the bus, neither a question of lack of territorial jurisdiction was raised nor the question of any prejudice had been argued. It is only the first respondent who raised the question of territorial jurisdiction. However, no prejudice was caused to the appellant by the claim petition being tried by the MACT at Nainital. 12. Now, coming to the present case. In regard to the issue of jurisdiction, the Tribunal has framed issue no.5. On this issue, the Tribunal held that accident occurred in Haryana within the territorial limits of P.S. Madhuban District Karnal and the deceased was employed as A.S.I. with the Haryana Police while the claimants have given their address in the claim petition as 40 Battalion P.A.C. Colony, Jwalapur, District Haridwar and have failed to show purpose of living there. The Tribunal further observed that wife of the deceased is residing with her children at the address given in the claim petition but has not filed any evidence in support thereof. The Tribunal further observed that wife of the deceased is residing with her children at the address given in the claim petition but has not filed any evidence in support thereof. It also observed that the claimants did not file any evidence to show as to in which capacity she is residing in 40 Battalion P.A.C. Colony, Jwalapur, District Haridwar, as the allotment in that Colony is given to the persons who are either employed in P.A.C. or allotment order has been made by the Commandant himself in their favour, but claimant no.4–wife of deceased has neither filed any allotment order made in her favour nor has shown any document to show her purpose of living there. The Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the respondents have not denied the address of the claimants by filing any evidence either in oral or documentary. P.W.1 Santosh Devi, in her examination-in-chief, has deposed that she is the resident of 40 Battalion P.A.C. Colony, Jwalapur, District Haridwar. Besides her, PW5 Ashwini Kumar and PW6 Sohan Singh have also deposed that the claimant Santosh Devi was residing at 40 Battalion P.A.C. Colony, Jwalapur, District Haridwar. The respondents have not cross-examined the witnesses on this point; as such this fact remains un-rebutted. In view of the cogent and un-rebutted evidence, I am of the view that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue no.5 are perverse and are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. It is held that the claimants were residing at 40 Battalion P.A.C. Colony, Jwalapur, District Haridwar. In such view of the matter, learned Tribunal has committed gross illegality in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 13. In the light of aforesaid, appeal is allowed. Matter is remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the claim petition afresh on its own merits, after hearing all the parties concerned. As the oral and documentary evidence have already been led by the parties before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petition within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. 14. Lower court record be sent back.