The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provision for territorial jurisdiction under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, emphasizing the facilitation of remedies for the victims of accidents and the avoidance of a hyper-technical approach in jurisdictional matters.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal from order is filed by appellant – original claimant, who has filed Claim Petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which arises out of the vehicular accident which took place on 04.02.2013 at Ambad, Dist. Jalna.

2. The appellant filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 300/2013 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Aurangbad (hereinafter referred to as “MACT, Aurangabad”). In the said claim petition, the appellant has shown his address as Aurangabad so also the office address of Respondent no. 3 as New Osmanpura, Aurangabad. The respondents no. 1 and 2 filed their written statement so also respondent no. 3 – Insurance Company filed it’s written statement on 21.01.2016. The appellant filed his evidence in the form of affidavit of evidence on 06.02.2017 and was accordingly cross-examined. Thereafter, the appellant examined one more witness who is an Orthopedic Surgeon at Aurangabad. The said witness was also cross-examined on 20.09.2017.

3. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of the vehicle raised objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The said Application was treated as Exh. 1. The said Application was filed on the ground that accident had taken place at Ambad, Dist. Jalna, therefore, the MACT, Aurangabad, had no jurisdiction. The said Application was opposed by respondent nos. 1 and 2. After hearing both the sides, MACT, Aurangabad, held that the MACT Aurangabad has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the claim petition for compensation.

4. The claimant has therefore filed this Appeal from Order challenging the order dated 16.05.2019. It is argued on behalf of the claimant that the claimant is residing at Aurangabad, which has been stated in the claim petition before MACT, Aurangabad. So also, defendant no. 3 has office at Aurangabad and, therefore, the MACT, Aurangabad would have jurisdiction.

5. Advocate for the claimant referred to the provision of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act and argued that hence accordingly the place of residence of the claimant and the place of office of defendant no.3/respondent no. 3 will also have jurisdiction; otherwise the place where the untoward accident has occurred will also have jurisdiction. In the present case, even though the accident had taken place at Ambad, Dist. Jalna (which would have jurisdiction), the MACT, Aurangabad will have jurisdiction since the claimant is residing at Aurangabad and admittedly the defendant no. 3 has an office at Aurangabad.

6. The advocate for the claimant relied upon the following judgments, which read thus: Para no. 11 and 16 read as under :

[i] Malati Sardar Versus National Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2016) 3 SCC 43.

11. In our view, the matter is fully covered by decisions of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra). It will be worthwhile to quote the statutory provision of Section 166(2) of the Act :

“166. Application for compensation.— (1)

(2) 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.”

16. The provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hyper technical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated. There is no bar