FAO No.7249 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.7249 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 16.07.2014 Smt.
Kalawati ...Appellant Versus Paras Ram and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present Mr.Navneet Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Vijay Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3.
**** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
(ORAL) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant on the ground returning of the claim petition vide order dated 18.11.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat, (for short, 'the Tribunal').Learned counsel for the appellant states that the accident in question occurred in the jurisdiction of District Kurukshetra, at that point of time the claimant had been residing at Delhi, however, after the death of her husband and son, she shifted to her native village under the jurisdiction of District Sonepat.
The claim petition preferred by the appellant at Sonepat was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction holding that the accident took place in the territorial jurisdiction of the district Kurukshetra as the Court at Sonepat is not competent to pass the award though, the complete evidence has been recorded in this case.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
Manoj Kumar 2014.07.30 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.7249 of 2010 -2- Section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:- “166.
Application for compensation.-(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorized by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.
(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.
(3) XX XX XX (4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.”
.
This was a special concession made to the claimants looking to the circumstances that it would be most inconvenient to claimant to file the petition at a place where the accident occurred or where he normally resides or carries on his business within the local limit of Manoj Kumar 2014.07.30 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.7249 of 2010 -3- tribunal.
This option was given to the claimant with a view to facilitate justice and was made by way of departure from the normal rule.
Now by way of amendment, the tribunals at the following places were conferred with the jurisdiction to try the claim petitions :- 1.
where the accident occurred; or 2.
within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on his business; or 3.
within the local limit whose jurisdiction the defendant resides or carries his business.
The above grammatical construction would be that the petitioner could choose either of the three or getting the option.
The legislature gave them benefit of option in the second clause by going out of the way.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mantto Sarkar versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) held that as under:- “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”.Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the residence of the claimant determine the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
Admittedly, in the instant case, at the time of filing the claim petition the appellant was residing within the jurisdiction of district Sonepat.
In Kamlesh and others versus Satish Kumar and others reported in 2012 (1) R.C.R.152 it has been held as under:- Manoj Kumar 2014.07.30 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.7249 of 2010 -4- P7.
“A plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 166 of the Act shows that the claim petition can be filed at either of the three places, namely; (i) The place within whose jurisdiction the accident had taken place; (ii) where the claimants reside or carries on business; or (iii) where the defendants reside”.P8.
“Ordinarily, the Tribunal where the claimants normally had been residing or carrying on business would be the place for determining the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
However, if there is change in the place of residence after the death as in the present case, the Tribunal where the claimants had been residing at the time of filing claim petition would also have the jurisdiction.
The said interpretation is in consonance with the legislative intent with which the provision had been incorporated”.In view of the settled proposition of law this Court holds that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Sonepat has the jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the claim petition.
Thus the Tribunal has erred in returning the claim petition of the appellant on the point of lack of jurisdiction.
The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and it is directed that the Tribunal shall proceed further in the claim petition and dispose of it on merits of the case.
The FAO is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the claim petition on merits.
The parties through their counsel are directed to appear on 16.08.2014 before the District Judge, Sonepat who shall dispose of the case either himself or entrust it to some other Tribunal of the competent jurisdiction.
July 16, 2014 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Manoj Bhutani JUDGE Note : Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes Manoj Kumar 2014.07.30 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document