JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. P.S. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

1. This is an application under article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment dated 25.7.2016 passed in MAC Case No. 275/2013 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar. Holding, inter alia, that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar did not have the territorial jurisdiction within the meaning of section 166(2) of the MV Act, 1988, for short “the Act of 1988” to entertain the said claim petition.

2. The brief facts of the instant case is that the claimants who are the legal representatives of one Vanlalsiama Lushai claimed an amount of Rs. 21,00,000 as compensation on account of the accident which took place on 24.8.2001 at Longlai on PWD road at 9 a.m. under Umrangsho P.S. in the district of Dima Hasao by a motor vehicle bearing No. AS-3 01126 belonging to the respondent No. 4 herein. Though the accident happened in the year 2001, the claimants filed an application seeking compensation in the year 2013 before the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar on the ground that at that relevant point of time there was no Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Dima Hasao. It is the case of the petitioners that the said Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Silchar was nearest to the place of the accident as well as the residence of the claimants for which the said application was filed at the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Silchar.

3. The respondents herein filed their written statement in the said proceedings and thereupon five issues were framed which for the sake of convenience is quoted herein below:-

Issues to be decided.

“1. Whether the claim petition is maintainable on the point of jurisdiction?

2. Whether the deceased died due to and out of use of the motor vehicle? If so whether the petition is maintainable under section 163(A) M.V. Act?

3. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? Is so what is just and reasonable compensation?

4. To what other relief/reliefs the claimants are entitled?

5. Whether the Government of Assam is liable to pay compensation to the claimants?”

4. The Tribunal below vide a judgment dated 25.7.2016 dismissed the claim petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction which was the Issue No. 1 and in view of the said decision taken in respect to Issue No. 1, the tribunal did not go into the other issues. It is against the said judgment of the Tribunal that the petitioners has approached this court under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. The question of territorial jurisdiction has to be decided in terms of section 166(2) of the Act of 1988 and for the sake of convenience, the said sub-section is quoted herein below:-

“166.(1)*********

(2) Every application under sub-section(1) shall be made, at the opinion 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 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.”

6. A perusal of the said sub-section would go to show that an application seeking compensation shall be made at the option of the claimant either to the Claimant 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 wh