Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 325 (RAJ)

Mohd. Hanif v. Jaswant Singh

2021-02-10

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. The matter comes up on an application filed under rule 161 of High Court Rules, 1952 seeking early hearing of the case. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up and heard finally today itself. 4. The instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran District Pali in MACT Case No.60/2018. Vide order aforesaid, claim petition of the appellants-claimants was returned to them for presenting the same before the Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently submitted that the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for respondent Insurance Company should have been disposed of and decided in the first instance, whereas in the present case, learned Tribunal has framed the issue and decided the same only on the ground of jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submits that in view of section 166 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimants were residing in Jaitaran as the deceased and they were performing the work of casual labourers at village Kawaliya, Tehsil-Jaitaran District Pali. He further submits that the claim petition was also maintainable on the ground that the respondent Insurance Company was having its office within the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel further submits that two claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal arising out of the same accident. In another claim petition No.59/2018, the Tribunal after adjudication of the claim petition awarded compensation on merits against which the claimants have preferred an appeal before this court being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1595/2020 for enhancement of award. The said appeal is pending before this court, therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal in his claim petition, relegating the same to the competent Tribunal on the count of territorial jurisdiction is incorrect and erroneous. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the order impugned. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submits that the order dated 03.03.2020 does not suffer from any illegality as the same has been passed in conformity with law. He further submits that none of the ingredients as mentioned under section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are fulfilled, therefore, territorial jurisdiction at Jaitaran is barred. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company submits that the order dated 03.03.2020 does not suffer from any illegality as the same has been passed in conformity with law. He further submits that none of the ingredients as mentioned under section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are fulfilled, therefore, territorial jurisdiction at Jaitaran is barred. Thus, learned Tribunal has rightly returned the claim petition to the appellants. 8. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and also gone through the order impugned. 9. Section 166 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under:- "166. 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.]" 10. A plain reading of section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 clearly shows that an application can be preferred to the Claims Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or within the local jurisdiction of the Tribunal where the defendant resides. In the present case, the fact that the appellants and deceased were performing job of labour so they were located or residing in a village at Jaitaran, therefore, as per the provisions of sub section 2 of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the matter. Therefore, the claim petition was rightly preferred by the appellants before the Tribunal. Further, the counsel for the respondent Insurance Company is not in a position to dispute the fact of presence of respondent Insurance Company's office within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal located at Jaitaran for the reason that Pali office of the respondent Insurance Company looks after the business activities and official work of the village situated at Jaitaran also. Further, the counsel for the respondent Insurance Company is not in a position to dispute the fact of presence of respondent Insurance Company's office within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal located at Jaitaran for the reason that Pali office of the respondent Insurance Company looks after the business activities and official work of the village situated at Jaitaran also. Thus, the Tribunal was not right in returning the claim petition to the appellants on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The finding recorded by the tribunal is, therefore, erroneous. 11. In view of the discussions made above, the appeal succeeds. The same is allowed. The order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaitaran District Pali is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the tribunal to decide the same on merit other than issue No.3. 12. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly. 13. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on or before the Tribunal on 17.03.2021. 14. The record of the MACT Case No.60/2018 be sent back.