R/o Palsoda Panth, Thana Baghana, District Neemach (M.P.) v. Shivpura, Thana Dadabadi, District Kota

Order 25/04/2025 MANEESH SHARMA, J (ORAL):

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on behalf of the appellant against the award dated 27.04.2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge Fast Track No.1), Bharatpur in claim case No.308/2008 whereby the claim petition was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant/appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge Fast Track No.1), Bharatpur claiming compensation of Rs.52 lakhs on account of loss suffered by the claimant due to injuries sustained in the road accident which was occurred on 22.06.2005. [2025:RJ-JP:17550] (2 of 6) [CMA-2903/2011]

3. In the claim petition, respondent No.1 i.e. driver of the vehicle has not filed any reply and respondent No.2 i.e. owner of the vehicle has filed reply and denied the involvement of the truck. It is also submitted that respondent No.3- National Insurance Company filed the reply and raised an issue that the accident occurred in the District Chittorgarh and the appellant has shown herself a permanent resident of Madhya Pradesh and the truck owner is the resident of Kota, therefore, the present appeal under the jurisdiction of Bharatpur is not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the truck in question was not insured with the Insurance Company, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to make payment and prayed for rejection of the claim petition.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the MACT Court framed following issues:- 1- D;k fnukad 22-06-05 dks tksxfj;k ekrk ds n'kZu djds ykSV jgs Fks rks xkMh esa cSBus ds fy, iSj j[kk brus esa feuh Vªd la[;k vkjts 05@th-7243 dk pkyd vius okgu dks rst xfr o ykijokgh ls pykdj yk;k vkSj izkFkhZ;k esa VDdj ekjdj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh ftlls izkFkhZ;k ds 'kjhj ij pksVsa vkbZ \ 2- vk;k oDr nq?kZVuk feuh Vªd pkyd ds ikl oS/k ,oa izHkkoh pkyu vuqKki= ugha Fkk rFkk Vªd esa l'kqYd vFkok fu'kqYd lokfj;k cSBkdj ;k=k djk;h tk jgh Fkh vr% chek ikfylh dh 'krksZa dk mYya?ku gksus ds dkj.k vizkFkhZ la[;k 3 dk dksbZ nkf;Ro {kfriwfrZ vnk;xh dk ugha gS \ 3- vuqrks"k \

5. In order to substantiate the averments of the claim, the claimant examined herself as AW-1 and AW-2 Mahesh Kumar and exhibited certain documents i.e. Ex.1 to Ex.57. The non-claimant despite granted opportunity did not led any evidence. [2025:RJ-JP:17550] (3 of 6) [CMA-2903/2011]

6. Since the Insurance Company has questioned to jurisdiction of the learned MACT, therefore, the learned MACT Court has tried to decide issue No.3 as a preliminary issue and while deciding the said preliminary issue, the learned MACT held that present claim petition is not triable under jurisdiction of MACT Court Bharatpur and accordingly the claim petition was ordered to be returned while invoking the provision of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC for presentation in the competent Court of jurisdiction.

7. Feeling aggrieved of which, the present appeal has been filed by the claimants. It has been contended by the claimant that the order passed by the learned Court below is arbitrary and perverse for the reason that learned Court has erred in not considering the provisions of Section 166(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. For the sake of convenience the provision of Section 166(2) of M.V. Act are reproduce as under:- "166 Application for Compensation:- (1) ------ (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. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that in order to satisfy the requirement of Section 166(2) of the Act, the claimant has exhibited the documents as Ex. 1 & 2 to the effect that she is residing/carrying the business within the local limits [2025:RJ-JP:17550] (4 of 6) [CMA-2903/2011] of Bharatpur jurisdiction, therefore, the findings recorded by Court is perverse and based on misleading of the evidence.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that initial burden to prove issue No.3 was on the appellant and the appellant fairly discharged the onus of said issue and in rebuttal to the same, the Insurance Company has not led any evidence, therefore, the issue No.3 ought not to have been decided against them. Learned counsel for the appellant in order to buttress his contentions relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2009 R.A.R. 67 (SC) dated

16.02.2008.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance Company supported the impugned order and submits that the impugned order is perfectly just and proper, and hence, does not call for any interference by this Court.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. The present claim petition has been directed to be returned for presentation of the same in the Court of Competent jurisdiction merely on the ground that the claimants have not filed any documentary proof to prove the fact that they are carrying on business under the local limits of jurisdiction of Bharatpur.

13. The said findings of the Court below is contrary to the documents Ex.1 and 2 filed by the appellant which clearly demonstrates that the appellant is carrying business along with her husband under the jurisdiction of Bharatpur Court. [2025:RJ-JP:17550] (5 of 6) [CMA-2903/2011]

14. A bare perusal to Section 166(2) reveals that jurisdiction of Tribunal having regard to the terminology used therein must be held to be wider and the claimant has given an option to choose the forum and in the present case the claimant has stated that she is a resident of Madhya Pradesh as well as of Bharatpur and out of two options available to her she preferred to file claim petition under the Bharatpur jurisdiction, therefore, the findings of the Court below that the Court of Bharatpur is not having jurisdiction is perverse in the eyes of law.

15. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2009 R.A.R. 67 (SC) decided on 16.02.2008 held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a special statute therefore the jurisdiction of Tribunal must be construed in a wider sense and claimants have been given wider option.

16. A bare look to the evidence available on record specially Ex.1 & 2 and uncontroverted evidence of the appellant the learned Court below seriously erred in deciding the issue No.3 against the appellant and erred in returing the claim petition to be presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction while invoking the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC further the practice and procedure adopted by learned MACT Court as unsustainable.

17. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge Fast Track No.1), Bharatpur is untenable in the eyes of law being contrary to the provisions of Section 166(2) of MV Act. [2025:RJ-JP:17550] (6 of 6) [CMA-2903/2011]

18. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds, and the impugned order is set aside. In order to avoid the delay, the parties are directed to appear before the learned MACT Court on 15.07.2025.

19. Looking to the fact that the claim in question is pending since 2008 and trial is complete, the learned MACT Court is directed to decide the claim petition preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. DEEPA RANI -51 (MANEESH SHARMA),J