Dilip B. Bhosale J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.6.11 rendered by the presiding officer, FTC- I/II, Bijapur in MVC No.346/09, whereby the motor vehicles case (for short 'the claim petition') instituted by the appellant-claimants, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act'), has been dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that on 29.12.2008, while the deceased-Rajendra was travelling in a bus, bearing Registration No.MH-20-D-9030, at about 7 a.m., met with an accident near Pirachi- Kurolli, on Pandharpur-Pune road in the State of Maharashtra. The bus, in which he was travelling collided with a truck bearing registration No.MH-12-EF-2210 coming from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. In the accident, Rajendra sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. At the relevant time, he was working as a Police Constable in the State of Maharashtra and was getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, the heirs and legal representations of Rajendra filed claim petition before the MACT, Bijapur.

3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent-Insurance Company challenged the claim petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, contending that the claimants are permanent residents of Maharastra, and therefore, the claim petition instituted in this state deserves to be dismissed. In the claim petition, the claimants stated that they are residents of Adaki Galli, Bijapur, and therefore, the Tribunal has a jurisdiction to entertain their petition. They however, did not place any material whatsoever on record in support of their claim. Even before this Court, when we asked, learned counsel appearing for the appellants whether he has any document to show that the claimants have any connection with this State and/or they are residents of Bijapur or any part of this State, his reply was in the negative.

4. It has come on record that the deceased was in Government service in the State of Maharastra. It is in this backdrop, the Tribunal after relying upon the unreported judgment of this Court observed in the concluding paragraph thus:

"It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have not at all produced any document to show that they are the natives of Bijapur district or Karnataka State. As could be seen from the entire documents produced by the petitioner, which reveals that the accident took place in Pandharpur. In view of MFA 1458/07 dated 15.11.2010 the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that

"Unless the claimants produced proof for their permanent address either by way of election card or ration card or bank pass book or any other documents to satisfaction of the tribunal for his jurisdiction."

But in the instant case the petitioners have simply filed the claim petition and contending that they are resident of Bijapur, but they have not produced any document of proof for their residence to the satisfaction of the tribunal. It is pertinent to note as could be seen from the entire material produced by the petitioners which reveals that the accident took place at Pandharpur Dist. Solapur, the claimants resides at Solapur District, the deceased working as govt. servant in the state of Maharastra and which itself shows that the deceased was hailing from Maharastra. As per the dictum laid down by the their lordship in supra ruling, which is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Therefore, viewing from any angle the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable on the ground of jurisdiction. Accordingly, I answer Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative."

5. It is not the case of claimants that either any one of them or all are having any business in this State. Similarly, it is not the case of the claimants that respondent/s is/are resident/s of this State. Admittedly, the accident occurred in the State of Maharashtra. In the backdrop of these facts, we have heard lea