The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the jurisdiction and the power of attorney provisions under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.

1. All the three appeals arise out of the same judgment and award, hence all the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The appellant-Insurance Company has filed the appeals against the order dated 16.3.2002 passed in Claim Cases No. 31, 33 and 32 of 2000 by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Accident Claim Tribunal, Patna by which the Tribunal has allowed the application filed by the claimants under Section 140 of the M.V. Act awarding ad interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case the accident had taken place at some place in the State of U.P. and the owner of the offending vehicle is also resident of U.P. and the claimants reside in U.K. and therefore, the Tribunal at Patna had no jurisdiction to grant ad interim compensation to the claimants. Learned counsel for the respondents claimants, in reply, submitted that the mother, father and sister of the claimants died in the accident. He further submitted that the claimants are permanent residents of the district of Patna and they have their temporary residence in U.K. only for the purposes of pursuing their studies. Therefore, there is no substance in the submissions of the Insurance Company that the court of Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. District Judge, Patna has no jurisdiction to pass this order.

4. The further ground taken by the Insurance Company is that the claim application has been filed by respondent no. 3 on the basis of unregistered power of Attorney executed by the respondent no. 1. Hence, no compensation could be awarded in favour of respondent no. 3.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, in reply, submitted that under Section 166 of the M.V. Act an agent can also file a claim application and in the present case since the claimants reside in U.K. it is obvious that they personally cannot come and contest the case. Hence, under the provisions of the M.V. Act they have authorised respondent no. 3 to file this claim application. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned order on this count also.

6. Under Section 166 of the M.V. Act a claimant can file a claim case within the jurisdiction where he resides. From the perusal of the Memo of Appeal also I find that the appellant itself has given the addresses of respondents no. 1 and 2 as resident of Jai Prakash Nagar, P.S. Agamkuan, District Patna and it has been further mentioned in the Memo of Appeal that at present they are studing in U.K. Respondent No. 3 is also residing at Patna as per address given in the Memo of Appeal. Therefore, it appears that respondents no. 1 and 2 are actually permanent residents of Patna and they are temporarily residing in U.K. Therefore, the Tribunal at Patna has jurisdiction to decide the claim case.

7. So far the other point is concerned, I agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents that under Section 166(d) of the Act a duly authorised agent can also file a claim application. Therefore, there appears no infirmity if a Power of Attorney authorising respondent no. 3 has been given by respondent no. 1 to file the claim case on her behalf and on behalf of her minor brother (respondent no. 2) who is under the guardianship and respondent no. 3 has accordingly filed the application. Nothing could be shown by the learned counsel that such Power of Attorney should be registrered. So the application is quite competent.

8. Therefore, there is no merit in these appeals and they are dismissed.

9. Counsel for the respondents prayed for directing the office to disburse the statutory amount in favour of respondent no. 3, authorised agent for respondent no. 1.

10. The Registry is directed to issue the cheque of the statutory amount in the name of respondent Ashesha Sinha and the same would be handed over to respondent no. 3.