The provision for territorial jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents, and a hyper technical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated.

JUDGMENT

A.K. Goel, J. :

1. Leave granted. The question raised in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kolkata only on the ground that the Tribunal did not have the territorial jurisdiction.

2. On 7th May, 2008, the deceased Diganta Sardar, aged 26 years, a school teacher, unmarried son of the Appellant was hit by Bus No. WB/15-A-4959 insured with the Respondent company at Hoogly, in the State of West Bengal and died. He was travelling on motor cycle of his colleague, Uttam Samui as a pillion rider. The Appellant filed an application Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act") for compensation before the Tribunal at Kolkata.

3. Rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus having been established, the Tribunal, applying the multiplier of 13 on account of age of the Appellant being 47 years, and taking into account the income of the deceased and other relevant factors, fixed compensation of Rs. 16,12,200/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition vide its Award dated 7th February, 2012.

4. The Respondent company preferred an appeal before the High Court on the only ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The objection of the Respondent was that the accident took place at Hoogly and the claimant resided at Hoogly. Office of the Respondent being at Kolkata did not attract jurisdiction of the Kolkata Tribunal. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Union of India v. G.S. Grewal, (2014) 7 SCC 303 and Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director, Health Services, Haryana, (2013) 10 SCC 136 apart from the High Court judgments. The Appellant supported the award by placing reliance on judgment of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, (2009) 2 SCC 244 apart from other judgments.

5. The High Court upheld the objection of the Respondent and allowed the appeal of the Respondent company and directed refund of the amount deposited/paid, if any, to the Respondent company. It was observed:

In the instant case admittedly the accident took place in Hooghly. The claimant, as evident from the cause title, resides at Hoogly. The owner, the Respondent, too resides at Hooghly. Hooghly, no doubt, is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Kolkata. The argument of the Respondent-claimant that the Kolkata Tribunal exercises jurisdiction since the regional office of the insurance company is situated within its territorial limits cannot be accepted as the last option Under Section 166(2) cannot be construed to mean the residential address of the company as a company can have a business or an office address and not a residential address. Therefore, the Tribunal at Kolkata had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. In this regard we follow the principles of law laid down in New India Assurance Co. Limited v. Kustiswar Pramanik (supra) [2010 (1) T.A.C. 405 (Cal), in Nirmala Devi Agarwal (supra) [2013 (3) CLJ (Cal)] and in the unreported judgment delivered on 18th July, 2012 in FMA 724 of 2008 with C.O.T. 22 of 2008 (The New Indian Assurance Col. Ltd. v. Silpi Dutta and Ors.) and we respectfully disagree with the judgment in FMA 1454 of 2013 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alpana Jana and Ors.).

6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

7. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the High Court was in grave error in holding that the Kolkata Tribunal could not exercise jurisdiction on the ground that registered office of the insurance company was within its territorial limits. Jurisdiction was available Under Section 166(2) if the Defendant/Respondent in a claim petition was residing within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The residence in the case of juristic person included its Principal office. In any case, the view taken by the High Court is directly in conflict with the law laid down by this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra) under which