J.C.S. Rawat, J.
1. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award dated 5.8.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Third Fast Track Court, Nainital (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), in M.A.C.P. No. 221 of 2005, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 5,12,000 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum to the claimants against New India Assurance Co. Ltd., appellant.
2. Claimants have preferred the cross-objection bearing No. 15035 of 2006 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, Nainital alleging therein that on 9.6.2005 at about 7 p.m. Kishan Lal alias Kishan Pal (deceased) was going on his motor cycle bearing No. UP 25-S 6009 from Pilibhit to his village Sagalpur Mahuaa, Police Station Bhojupura, District Bareilly. When he reached near Jatipur, Police Station Jahanabad, District Pilibhit, U.P. a motor cycle No. UP 26-C 4292 coming from the opposite side rashly and negligently dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his person and died on the spot. It was further alleged that the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of accident and he was earning a sum of Rs. 2,250 per month as salary and he used to earn Rs. 3,000 per month from private tuitions. As such, the total income was Rs. 5,250 per month. Thus, the claim petition was filed by the dependants of the deceased for the compensation in lieu of his death.
4. The opposite parties filed their written statements and contested the case. The respondent No. 4, Rajpal Singh, who is the owner of motor cycle bearing No. UP 26-C 4292, had denied the accident. He further stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. It was further stated that the claimants have not impleaded the insurance company by which the motor cycle of the deceased was insured. Rajpal Singh has further stated in his written statement that his motor cycle was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and as such he was not liable to pay the compensation. The liability, if any, was of the insurer. He had also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal, Nainital. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. had also filed the written statement in which it had been alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. It was further pleaded that motor cycle of the deceased was being plied against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the deceased was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident.
5. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues in the case and ultimately, the learned Tribunal after hearing the parties had come to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle No. UP 26-C 4292 due to which the deceased sustained injuries on his person and died at the spot. It was further held that the deceased was not driving his motor cycle rashly and negligently at the time of accident and, as such, there was no need to implead the insurer of the deceased's motor cycle. So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, it was held that the Tribunal at Nainital has got the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and the claim petition can be filed at the option of the claimants under Section 166 (2) of the Act. The offending motor cycle bearing No. UP 26-C 4292 was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. at the time of accident and it was not being plied against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The learned Tribunal had assessed the age of the deceased as 22 years at the time of accident. The income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 3,250 per month or say Rs. 39,000 per annum. The learned Tribunal, after deducting 1/3rd income for personal expenses had fixed the dependency of the claimants as Rs. 26,000 per annum. Learned Tribunal had applied the multiplier of '17', the amount comes to Rs. 4,42,000. Apart from this, Rs. 15,000 for loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000 for loss to the estate, Rs. 15,000 towards love and affection, Rs. 20,000 for future benefit of promotion and Rs. 5,000 towards funeral expenses were awarded to the claimants. Thus, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 5,12,000 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum in favour of claimants against the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
6. Feeling aggrieved by this, appellant insurance company has preferred the present appeal. The claimants have preferred a cross-objection for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal at Nainital had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and hear the claim petition filed by the claimants in view of the provisions of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). It was further contended that the accident took place in District Pilibhit, U.P. and the claimants are residing at village Sagalpur Mahuaa, P.S. Bhojupura, District Bareilly, U.P. The claim petition shows that Rajpal Singh, who is the owner of offending motor cycle No. UP 26-C 4292 belongs to the District Pilibhit, U.P. It is also admitted that at the time of accident the offending motor cycle (No. UP 26-C 4292) was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. at Pilibhit Branch from 7.2.2005 to 16.2.2006. The learned Counsel for the insurance company further contended that the learned Tribunal had erred in holding that the Tribunal at Nainital has got territorial jurisdiction to dispose of the claim petition. Learned Counsel for the respondents (claimants) has supported the judgment of learned Tribunal at Nainital. It was further contended on behalf of claimants that since New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has its branch office at Haldwani, hence the Tribunal at Nainital can entertain the claim petition. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that though the insurance company had its branch office at Haldwani, but the vehicle in question had not been insured through the branch office, Haldwani. The vehicle was insured with the branch office, Pilibhit, U.P. and as such the contract of insurance was executed either at the headquarters of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. or at its branch office Pilibhit, U.P. The Tribunal at Nainital has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.
8. It has been mentioned at serial No. 23 (6) of the claim petition that claimant No. 2-Mitthan Lal carries on his occupation in District Nainital, as such, the Tribunal at Nainital has got jurisdiction to decide the claim petition. In reply to the said pleadings, insurance company has specifically denied. Claimants in support of the claim petition examined Javitri Devi, widow of the deceased, as PW 1, who has stated:
(Omitted as in vernacular)
9. On perusal of the aforesaid statement it cannot be inferred that the claimant No. 2-Mitthan Lal, the father of the deceased had been residing or carrying the business within the local limits of District Nainital. Thus, the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that it has got the jurisdiction to decide the claim petition.
10. Section 166 (2) of the Act provides as under:
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.
11. According to the aforesaid provision, every claim petition shall be filed at the option of the claimant either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to 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. In the case in hand, it is admitted that the accident took place in District Pilibhit, U.P. According to the claim petition, the claimants have been residing at Thana Bhojupura, District Bareilly, U.P. and the owner of the vehicle is a resident of District Pilibhit. It is also admitted that at the time of accident the offending motor cycle was insured with the appellant insurer at Pilibhit Branch, U.P. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, we could not understand the convenience to the claimants to file claim petition before the Tribunal at Nainital. Merely having an office of the insurance company at Haldwani within District Nainital is not sufficient to file the claim petition at Nainital. As a matter of fact, the contract between the insurance company and the owner of the offending motor cycle took place at Pilibhit. As such, the main defendant (insurance company) is at Pilibhit. Admittedly, the claimants are residing in District Bareilly and the owner of the vehicle is residing in District Pilibhit. The accident took place in District Pilibhit, which comes within the jurisdiction of M.A.C.T., Pilibhit. Admittedly, in this case, the claimants and owner of the offending vehicle are residing within the jurisdiction of the M.A.C.T., Bareilly or Pilibhit which is more close to his place of residence than the M.A.C.T., Nainital which is a distant place.
12. Sub-section (2) of Section 166 was added by the Amending Act 54 of 1994. While deciding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Sub-section (2) of Section 166 of the M.V. Act, the intention of Parliament has to be seen. Statement of Objects and Reasons to Amending Act 54 of 1994 are as follows:
(5) The Law Commission in its 119th Report had recommended that every application for a claim be made 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, at the option of the claimant. The Bill also makes necessary provision to give effect to the said recommendation.
13. The aim and object of introducing this amendment is quite obvious that Parliament has an intention in their mind to mitigate the difficulties of the claimants who seek the compensation for the death of the deceased. It was noticed by Parliament that the persons, while travelling to other States or other places, met with an accident and the families of the deceased had to file the claim petitions before the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the accident took place. In such cases, it was noticed that if a person belonging to Southern India and posted in the extreme Northern India met with an accident, the family members of the deceased had to file the claim petition where the deceased died in the accident. Sometimes, they do not prefer to file claim petitions because they have to travel and they have to make a heavy expenditure in the litigation. Parliament while keeping in mind the above has added Sub-section (2) of Section 166, M.V. Act in order to mitigate the difficulties and hardships of the claimants. Perusal of Section 166 (2) of the M.V. Act clearly reveals that the general principle is that the claim petition would be filed in the district where the accident occurred. There are two exceptions of the above general principle. First is that claim petition may be filed by the claimants before the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business. Second is that the claim petition may also be filed by the claimant before the Claims Tribunal within that local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant (respondent) resides. Perusal of the exception clearly reveals that Parliament has given a wide scope to the claimants to file the claim petitions where the claimants reside or where they carry on business. Meaning thereby, the claimants have three options to file the claim petitions either at the place where the accident occurred or where the claimants are residing or where the claimants are carrying out the business. Second exception of the above general principle is that the claimant may also file claim petition where the defendant (respondent) resides. This exception did not provide a right to the claimants to file the claim petition against the defendant (respondent) where the defendant (respondent) carries out the business. In the case in hand, the insurance policy was issued by the branch office, Pilibhit and the headquarters of the insurance company is at Chennai (sic Mumbai). Thus, the claimants had no right to file the claim petition where the defendant (respondent) are carrying the business, even though their offices are situated in such areas where the accident took place. If the defendant (respondent) carries out business in different places the claimant has no right to file the claim petition within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal where the defendant (respondent) carries on business. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal at Nainital had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition of the claimants.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the M.A.C.T., Nainital has erred in holding that the Tribunal at Nainital has the jurisdiction to dispose of the matter.
15. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Therefore, the award dated 5.8.2006 passed by the M.A.C.T. at Nainital in M.A.C.P. No. 221 of 2005 is set aside. Cross-objection filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is disposed of accordingly. However, the claimants are at liberty to file a fresh claim petition before the competent Tribunal. No order as to costs.