HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL vs Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioners.

was on the defendants and no evidence was filed by the defendants. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal, improper and against the weight of the evidence on record.

5. Respondent no.3 (Future General India Insurance Co. Ltd.), filed a written statement, denying most of the petition's allegations due to lack of knowledge. It stated that the driver of vehicle number HR-7OU-0777 did not possess a valid driving license on the date of the accident. HR-7OU-0777 was not being driven rashly or recklessly. It is incorrect to claim that the deceased earned ₹10,000/- per month and that the petitioners were dependent on him. The driver of vehicle number HR-7OU-0777 was driving at the correct speed on the date of the accident, and any statement to the contrary is not tenable. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.

6. By filing written statement on behalf of opposite parties nos.1 and 2 (driver and owner of the vehicle), most of the statements of the plaint have been denied and it has been stated that the reality is that respondent no.1 was driving the car at normal speed on 2 the left side, when due to unknown reasons the deceased suddenly came in the middle of the road, due to which the accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased himself. It is untrue to say that respondent no.1 was driving the car in question without a valid license. Respondent no.1 had a valid license to drive the car. The compensation demanded is exorbitant and respondent no.3 is not responsible for any payment of compensation.

7. Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues are raised:- 1-Whether this accident occurred on 01-02- 2010 between 4.15 to 4.30 in the morning at MG Road, Delhi, Gurgaon, near Vipul Arora Building, Police Station DFL Qutub Enquileb, District Gurgaon, due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle number HR-7 OU-0777 by opponent no. 1 and hitting Amit Singh, who was coming to his house with his companions Mukesh and Rahul, due to which he suffered serious injuries and as a result died? 2-Whether the driver of vehicle number HR-7 OU-0777 had a valid driving license at the time of the accident, if yes then what is the effect? 3-Whether the petitioners/claimants entitled to receive any compensation amount, if yes, then how much and from which party?

8. On issue no.1, relying on the FIR, eyewitness accounts and the post-mortem report, the Tribunal held that the accident indeed was caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle no. HR 07 - OU - 0777 due to which the deceased - Amit Kumar sustained fatal injuries 3 and succumbed to them.

9. On issue no.2 the Tribunal decided that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving license on the date of accident. The evidence on record that a photocopy of Driving License No. 1689/P/2001 was submitted on behalf of the petitioners, claiming it belonged to Virendra Singh, the driver of Respondent No. 1. However, respondent no.3’s witness, DW-1 Iftkhar Ahmed, verified the license from the RTO, Agra, and confirmed through the official report (Paper No. 37G, Form 54) that the license was actually issued to S.P. Singh, son of Matrumal, resident of D-42, Pratap Nagar, Agra. Both the oral testimony and documentary evidence prove that the license did not belong to Respondent no.1 - Virendra Singh, and therefore, he was not holding a valid driving license at the time of the accident.

10. On issue no.3, the Tribunal decided that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the case. This case concerns a compensation claim filed by petitioners Khajan Singh and Smt. Amma Devi. The counsel for respondent no.3 (Insurance Company) argued that this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which allows a claim to be filed only where (1) the accident occurred, (2) the claimant resides or conducts business, or (3) the defendant resides or conducts business.

11. In this case, the petitioners claimed to live in Mussoorie, Dehradun, but provided no proof of residence or business there. On the other hand, the FIR, post- mortem report, and death certificate all list the deceased’s address as Village Tator, District Tehri 4 Garhwal, not Dehradun. The driver (Respondent no.1) and owner (Respondent no.2) both reside in Gurgaon, Haryana, and the insurance company (Respondent No. 3) is based in New Delhi. The accident itself occurred near Vipul Agora Building, MG Road, Gurgaon, Haryana— outside Dehradun’s jurisdiction. Since neither the petitioners nor the respondents reside or conduct business in Dehradun, and the accident occurred in Gurgaon, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the case. Therefore, the compensation petition is not maintainable and is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

12. Upon hearing learned counsel for both sides and perusing the record, this Court finds that the Tribunal’s approach was unduly technical and inconsistent with the beneficial object of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 166(2) of the Act expressly provides that a claim may be filed before the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which (i) the accident occurred, or (ii) the claimant resides or carries on business, or (iii) the defendant resides or carries on business. The provision is intended to facilitate access to justice for victims and their families, not to restrict it.

13. It is further observed that the learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition had framed three issues for determination. However a crucial regarding its own territorial jurisdiction was not framed or adjudicated upon. This omission has resulted in a material irregularity as the learned Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the petition solely on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction without framing or deciding any specific issue to that effect.

14. In Malati Sardar Vs. National Insurance Co. 5 Ltd. (2016) 3 SCC 43, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: “An objection relating to territorial jurisdiction is a technical one and unless there is a failure of justice, the award of the Tribunal cannot be set aside merely on such ground.

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 the victims of accidents. Hypertechnical 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.”

15. Moreover, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 244, categorically held that the question of territorial jurisdiction is a technical one and unless there is a failure of justice an award of Tribunal cannot be set aside merely on such ground.”

16. The principle underlying the aforesaid decision is that the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, is a piece of social welfare legislation and must be interpreted liberally in favour of claimants. The provision regarding territorial jurisdiction is benevolent in nature, intended to facilitate access to remedies rather than restrict them. A hyper- technical approach in such matters is contrary to the object and spirit of the act. Even assuming that some doubt existed as to jurisdiction the proper course to the 6 Tribunal was to transfer the case to the competent Tribunal and not to dismiss it outright.

17. Applying the ratio of Malati Sardar (supra) to the present case, it is clear that the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim petition. No prejudice was shown to have been caused to the respondents, and the dismissal has unjustly deprived the claimants of an opportunity to seek compensation for the death of their son. This Court also notes that the findings of the Tribunal on rash and negligent driving and on the absence of a valid license are findings of fact that were based on evidence and remain unchallenged at this stage. The only ground for dismissal was lack of territorial jurisdiction, which, in light of the above legal position, cannot be sustained.

18. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court holds that the dismissal of the claim petition for want of jurisdiction was improper and contrary to the settled legal position laid down in Malati Sardar (supra).

19. Accordingly appeal from order is allowed. The judgment and order of the learned Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for adjudication on merits, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment.

20. Let the Lower Court Records’ be returned back to the court below. SK (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 09.10.2025 7