This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the order dated 06.09.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Kurnool in M.V.O. P. No. 676 of 2000.

2. The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-on account of the death of one Suresh in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 16.10.1999 near Konduru Cheruvu on the road Pebber-Kollapur, Mahaboobnagar District. The first claimant is the wife and the claimants 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased.

3. The claim petition is filed against the Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kurnool showing as respondent. The learned Tribunal framed the issues, conducted an enquiry into the claim during the course of which the claimants examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5, whereas the respondent examined RW1. However, despite conducting an elaborate enquiry with a view to finally dispose of the claim petition, the tribunal ultimately returned the claim petition for presentation in the appropriate tribunal having jurisdiction on the ground that it has no territorial jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry into the claim. Consequently, the learned Tribunal declined to decide the remaining issues which relate to the liability of the Corporation to pay compensation and the quantum of compensation by the impugned order which is now under challenge in the present appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants and the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC.

5. Perusal of the order passed by the learned Tribunal obviously indicates non application of mind and its reluctance to decide the crucial issues involved in the claim petition. It appears from the order passed by the Tribunal that during the course of arguments a contention was advanced by the counsel for the respondent that the Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition on the ground that the place of accident and the place of residence of the claimants being within the local limits of jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahboobnagar, for which the learned counsel appearing for the claimants opposed on the ground that according to the averments of the claim petition, the petitioners as well as the respondent are residing within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the tribunal at Kurnool and therefore, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.

6. The learned Tribunal mentioned in its order that in Col No.2 of the proforma under Rule 455 of Motor Vehicle Rules given in the claim petition it is mentioned that the deceased and the claimants are residents of Pebber in Mehboobnagar District and therefore, the place of accident and place of residence of the claimants being within the limits of territorial jurisdiction of Mehboobnagar District, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Kurnool has no jurisdiction. But in para 8 of the claim petition, it is specifically pleaded that the accident took place at Konduru Village in Mehboobnagar District, the claimants and the respondent are residing in Kurnool Town within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and hence, the tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. The tribunal having referred the said averment made by the claimants in the claim petition observed that mere bald allegation in para 8 of the petition as stated above is not sufficient to prove the same and there is no proof of any kind for the said fact. Also observed that in fact in the deposition of PW.1 in the column relating to her descriptive particulars her residence is shown as Wanaparthy, whose jurisdiction is in the Mehboobnagar District. The Tribunal further expressed the view that in the evidence there was no whisper about the residence of the petitioners is Kurnool and also they have not produced any documentary evidence like household card, water bill, or residence certificate etc issued by the compet