1 - Naivediya Pandey S/o Shri Upendra Prasad Pandey Aged About 32 Years By v. 1 - Laxman Singh S/o Late Hazari Singh Aged About 31 Years By Caste
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39623 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1060 of 2024 1 - Naivediya Pandey S/o Shri Upendra Prasad Pandey Aged About 32 Years By Caste Brahman, At Present R/o Ward No. 16, Badan Singh Mohalla, Manendragarh, Thana And Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) --- Appellant versus 1 - Laxman Singh S/o Late Hazari Singh Aged About 31 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village Lamro, Thana Kotwali, Distt. Shahdol M.P. 2 - Samyak Jain S/o Motilal Jain Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Pandav Nagar, Shahdol Thana Kotwali, Distt. Shahdol Mp 3 - Aco General Insurance Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Unit No. 301, 3rd Floor, F-Wing, Lotus Corporate Park, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400063 --- Respondents For Appellant For Respondents No. 3 : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate Ms. Aditi Diwan & Ms. Priyanka Rai, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 07/08/2025 1. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.18 10:44:34 +0530 Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) challenging the impugned order dated 04.05.2024, passed in Claim Case No.24 of 2024, whereby the 2 learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District – Koriya (C.G.) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) dismissed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 for grant of compensation against the injury suffered in a road accident on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant/claimant filed an application seeking compensation under the Act, 1988 pleading therein that he met with an accident with offending vehicle within territory of Police Station – Sohagpur, District Sahdol (M.P.). Accident was reported to the concerned police station, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Shahdol (M.P.). Claimant suffered serious injuries over his person. As proper care was not available at his place of residence, he shifted to Manendragarh nearer to the place of his in-laws and thereafter filed an application before the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Manendragarh, District -Korea (C.G.) seeking compensation. Learned Claims Tribunal after receipt of claim case fixed the case for hearing on 04.05.2024 on the question of jurisdiction. Claim application was dismissed on the ground that Claims Tribunal is not having territorial jurisdiction because claimant is permanent resident of Shahdol District as also the place of accident is also of Shahdol. . 3. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in misreading the provisions under Section 166 (2) of the Act, 1988. He contended that the claimant in the claim application has pleaded correct facts, that place of accident is within Shahdol District (MP) and native place of residence of claimant is also 3 at Shahdol District. Further pleaded specific reason for his stay at Manendragarh to get proper care during treatment. He submits that claimant on the date of filing of claim application was residing at Manendragarh. In view of provisions under Section 166 (2) of the Act, 1988, Claims Tribunal at Manendragarh was having jurisdiction to entertain the claim application filed by appellant/claimant. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that learned Claims Tribunal taking note of the provisions under Section 166 (2) of the Act, 1988 and further considering that place of accident at District Shahdol (M.P.), native place of claimant to be in District Shahdol State of Madhya Pradesh, rightly dismissed the application reserving liberty to file before competent Claims Tribunal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 6. It is not in dispute that accident took place within the territory of Police Station Sohagpur, District Shahdol (M.P.), native place of appellant/claimant is also at District Shahdol (M.P.), however, he clearly pleaded in the claim application that he is residing at Manendragarh to take treatment and also for the reasons that there is no proper person to take care of him at his native place and he shifted to Manendragarh nearer to the place of residence of his in-laws. The impugned order also mentions that the claimant shifted at Manendragarh along with his family, he is not in a position to move and is residing at Manendragarh under compulsion. 4 7. Provisions under Section 166 (2) of the Act, 1988 is extracted below for ready reference :- “166. Application for compensation. - (1) x x x x x [(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:” 8. Perusal of the aforementioned provision would show that every application under Sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act of 1988 shall be made “at the option of the claimant” and he could file the application before the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carry business. Learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned order has considered that accident took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Shahdol (M.P.), applicant therein/appellant is permanent resident of District Shahdol (M.P.) and criminal case is also pending in Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Shahdol, has recorded that appellant has not submitted any documents of his residence at Manendragarh. It is also observed that temporary resident for the purpose of treatment would also be not considered as place of residence of claimant for purpose of deciding the question of jurisdiction of the Court. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental 5 Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 244 while considering the issue of territorial jurisdiction of tribunal in case where applicant therein was permanent resident of State of Utter Pradesh, he was skilled migrant seasonal agricultural labour, accident took place at Faridpur (U.P.), he took treatment in hospital at Pilibhit (UP) but filed an application for compensation in the Tribunal at Nainital (Uttarakhand). Hon’ble Supreme Court in above facts of the case has observed in 4, 5 & 12, which reads as under :- “4. The appellant was working as a skilled migrant seasonal agricultural labourer. He had been earning his livelihood at the relevant time by performing his job as a labourer in the work of extracting sand gravel from a river named “Gola River” near Beri Padav, Lalkuan, District Nainital, Uttaranchal. He is said to have been living for a long time at Pilibhit in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Indisputably, after he remained in District Hospital at Bareilly as an indoor patient up to 28-7- 2003, he was shifted to Prabhakar Hospital in Pilibhit. He underwent several operations. 5. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nainital (for short “the Tribunal”) claiming a sum of Rs 23,90,000 (Rupees twenty-three lakhs ninety thousand only) along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of actual payment. 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.”. 6 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Malati Sardar Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors., reported in (2016) 3 SCC 43 reiterating the observation made in case of Mantoo Sarkar (supra) has held as under :- “16. 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. Hypertechnical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated. ……...” 11. From the aforementioned facts of the case and the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is appearing that claimants can file claim application at the place where he is residing. In case at hand, it is the case of appellant that presently he is residing at Manendragarh on account of complications of motor accidental injuries, which is nearby place of his in-laws house. 12. So far as the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company that claimant has not produced evidence of his treatment in hospital at Manendragarh is concerned, it is settled law that in cases of application for compensation, it is not necessary for the parties filing claim application to plead any evidence in application. After filing of application seeking compensation by claimants, firstly it has to be admitted and registered. After appearance of the parties based on the pleadings, issues are to be framed and thereafter evidence of parties to be recorded. Claims Tribunal based on the pleadings and objection, could have framed issue of territorial 7 jurisdiction for considering the maintainability of claim application. Claimants thereafter will have an opportunity to bring evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal to prove reason for his residing within territorial jurisdiction of Claims Tribunal at Manendragarh. As that stage has not come and at the stage of admission itself based on the pleadings made in the claim application after hearing the counsel orally has dismissed the claim application with an observation that claimant has not produced any relevant document. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the submission of learned counsel for non-applicant/Insurance Company and the observation made in this behalf by learned claims Tribunal is not sustainable. 13. In the aforementioned facts of the case and above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that learned Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the application at preliminary stage of admission without issuing notice to other side, therefore, the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 is not sustainable and it is accordingly set-aside. The case is remitted back to the learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District – Koria (C.G.) to decide the claim case afresh after issuing notice, framing issues, recording evidence of parties and in this process learned Claims Tribunal will at liberty to frame issue of territorial jurisdiction also. The parties to the appeal are directed to appear before the learned Claims Tribunal on 28.10.2025. 14.
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Balram Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge