The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in the district where the accident occurred or where the claimant resides has jurisdiction to entertain the claim case, and a hyper-technical approach should not be taken in interpreting territorial jurisdiction provisions.

ORDER :

1. This is an application u/s 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the legality of the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2016, passed by the MACT Cachar, at Silchar in MAC Case No. 271/2011.

2. The petitioners are the residence of village Sarkari Bagan (New Police Reserve) under the Halflong Police Station District of Dima Hasao, Assam. On 30.10.2008, the deceased father of the petitioner’s along with some of his colleagues were travelling from Halflong Civil Hospital to Diwungmukh. They were Travelling in a vehicle bearing registration no. AS-01Z-4034 (Tata Sumo), when they reach Majubari, some extremists indiscriminately fired at them. The father of the petitioner and some of his colleagues instantly died after suffering bullet wounds. Therefore, the petitioner filed a Motor Accident Claim Case before the MACT, Cachar, at Silchar, because at that time, it was a only nearest Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. After hearing the petitioners and the opposite parties the Tribunal passed a Judgment on 16.07.2016, holding that the Tribunal did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said claim case.

3. The petitioners claim that u/s 166 (2) of the MV Act of 1988, other application under sub section 1 can be made, at the option of the claimant if either of the Claim Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claim Tribunal within local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides.

4. Mr. Talukdar submitted that at the time of filing the aforesaid claim at MACT, Cachar, the district of Dima Hasao did not have any Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. Mr. Talukdar further submitted that ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, which was the opposite party No. 2 in the claim case was doing business in the district of Cachar and therefore, MACT, Silchar, Cachar had territorial jurisdiction to dispose of the claim petition.

5. The learned counsel Mr. M. Talukar has relied upon the decision of this Court that was delivered in CRP No. 195/2017. According to Mr. Talukdar, this judgment was also passed in a similarly situated situation. Infact the said revision petition was filed by the legal heirs of a person who died along with the father of the petitioner. Relevant portion of the judgment is quoted as under:

“In the present case in hand, the petitioners are the resident of Dima Hasao district and at that relevant point of time, there was not Tribunal within the said district and the petitioners as the claimants preferred the claim petition before the Tribunal, Cachar at Silchar, a presumption arose that the Tribunal they opted is one of the convenient to them and under such circumstances, if the ratio of Malati Sardar (supra) is applied read with Section 166(2) of MV Act, 1988, the learned Tribunal and that too after completion of the trial ought not returned the claim petition by taking a hyper technical view. This, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside which, I accordingly do with a direction to the learned Member, Mact, Cachar at Silchar to take up the MACT Case No. 1068/2011 and dispose of the same as per law.”

6. Now this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in law. At the relevant time of occurrence, there was no MAC Tribunal in the district of Dima Hasaon and therefore, the petitioner opted to file the claim case before the MACT, Silchar. According to the law pertaining to Motor Accident Claim cases the provision of territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted in the light of the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accident and for that matter, hyper technical approach need not to be taken.

7. Under the aforesaid premised reasons the impugned order, dated 16.07.2016 passed by the MACT, Cachar, Silchar in MAC Case No. 271/2011 has set aside. The Tribunal is directed to try the MAC Case No. 271/2011 and to dispose of the matter ac