JUDGMENT

S.B. SINHA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Interpretation and/or application of Section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for the sake of brevity) in regard to territorial jurisdiction of a Tribunal is the question involved herein.

The said question arises in the following factual matrix.

3. Appellant had been travelling as a passenger in a bus, bearing registration No.MP-04-7915, belonging to Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation. It met with an accident in the town of Faridpur in the District of Uttar Pradesh having collided with truck bearing No.HR-38-E-5554. Appellant suffered grievous injuries. A First Information Report was lodged against the driver of the said truck under Sections 279, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.

Indisputably the said truck belonged to respondent No.2 and was registered at Faridabad. It was insured with respondent No.1-company. 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 `Hola River' near Beri Pada, Lalkuan, Distt. 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 the district Hospital at Bareilly as an indoor patient upto 28th July, 2003, he was shifted to Prabhakar Hospital in Pilibhit. He underwent several operations.

4. Appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nainital (for short `the Tribunal') claiming a sum of Rs.23,90,000/- (Rupees twenty three lakh ninety thousand only) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of actual payment.

5. Respondent No.1 has a branch office at Nainital.

The conductor of the bus and the driver of the truck examined themselves before the Tribunal as witnesses. No oral evidence was, however, adduced on behalf of the first respondent. One of the questions which, only the first respondent raised and no other, was lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the Tribunal.

The learned Tribunal inter alia on the premise that the jurisdiction conferred on it, having regard to sub-section (2) of Section 166 of the Act is wide and the insurance company having a branch office at Nainital, it had territorial jurisdiction to determine the claim petition. It made an Award of Rs.2,40,000/ (Rupees two lakh forty thousand only) in favour of the claimant.

6. The High Court, however, on an appeal preferred thereagaisnt by the first respondent, opined -

"It is a well settled position of law that the claim petition can only be entertained and filed before a court having the territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. The claimant cannot take the matter to different State on the pretext that his case would be disposed of expeditiously in that State or District without having the territorial jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the claimants submitted that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the Tribunal, Nainital had got no territorial jurisdiction to dispose of the matter, the claimants may be given liberty to file a fresh claim petition before the competent Tribunal."

On the basis of the said finding it was held that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nainital had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said claim petition.

7. Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as it failed to take into consideration the evidence of the appellant (PW-1) wherein he clearly stated that he had been working at Beri Pada, Lal Kuan in the District of Nainital, although he had not given his Lalkuan's address in his claim petition having been doing his work as a labourer. The evidence of the said witness having been accepted by the learned Tribunal, the High Court s