Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, appearing for respondent No. 2 as well as Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya and Ms. F. Begum, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed calling into question the order dated 16.07.2016, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Silchar, in MAC Case No. 1169/2015, returning the claim application to the claimant/petitioner.

2. The petitioner filed the claim case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Silchar, in respect of the injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident on 30.06.2014, which was registered as MAC Case No. 1169/2015. The accident took place in the district of Hailakandi and the owner of the vehicle and the claimant are also from the district of Hailakandi.

3. The owner of the vehicle filed written statement.

4. The learned Claims Tribunal opined that if the Claims Tribunal entertains the claim petition on the ground that the Divisional Office of the insurance company, which had issued the insurance policy, is situated within the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal at Silchar, the other defendants, i.e., the owner and the driver of the vehicle would be prejudiced. It was also observed that the Claims Tribunal saw no justification in dragging the owner, driver as well as the claimant to the Claims Tribunal at Silchar on the ground that insurance company had issued the insurance policy from its office situated within the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal at Silchar. The learned Claims Tribunal observed that the insurance company will not be prejudiced if the case is filed at Hailakandi, because it also carries on business at Hailakandi through its branch office. It was further observed that the claimant should also not entertain any grievance in filing the claim petition before the learned Claims Tribunal within whose jurisdiction he resides. Taking the above views, by the impugned order the learned Claims Tribunal returned the claim petition to the claimant for filing the same before the Claims Tribunal in his own district, i.e. Hailakandi.

5. While passing the aforesaid order, the learned Claims Tribunal relied upon the case of Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2016) 3 SCC 43.

6. Mr. Dasgupta has submitted that no issue was raised by any of the parties regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal. He submits that the learned Claims Tribunal misinterpreted the decision in Malati Sardar (supra), which clearly permits filing of a claim petition where the insurance company has its office.

7. Mr. Dutta, leaned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that, as is appearing from the impugned order, when the insurance policy was issued from the Divisional Office at Silchar, which is arrayed in the claim petition as opposite party No. 3, the learned Claims Tribunal at Silchar will have jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim petition.

8. Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 endorses the submissions of Mr. Dasgupta and Mr. Dutta.

9. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, "Act of 1988") provides for filing of the claim petition 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 the Claims Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides.

10. In Malati Sardar (supra), the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 16 as follows:

"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