K. Vinod Chandran, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P4, wherein an unnumbered original petition, seeking compensation for injury arising out of a motor vehicle accident, was returned by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, for want of jurisdiction.

2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was involved in a motor accident on 10.05.2014 wherein he has suffered serious injuries including amputation of 4 lateral toes. The accident occurred at Maniyath Padi, within the jurisdiction of Mathilakam Police Station and an FIR was registered. The petitioner resides in Kodungalloor. The 3rd respondent was the driver of the vehicle, whose registered owner is the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent is the person in whose favour the insurance policy has been issued, all of whom reside in Kodungalloor.

3. The insurance policy is issued by the 4th respondent, from its branch office at Vatanapally, which is within the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. Admittedly, the petitioner and the respondents do not reside within the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The Tribunal returned the application, for want of jurisdiction, since the place of occurrence and residence of the claimant are not within the jurisdiction of the said Tribunal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely on Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to contend that the claim can also be filed before a Tribunal, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the defendant resides. In this case since the insurance company is one of the defendants, the same has to be read as 'the defendant carries on its business', is the contention urged.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company as also the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. The 1st respondent has not appeared despite service of notice. None appearing, raise any objection with respect to the jurisdiction.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Lakshmi Devamma & Others v. The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Kurnool [CDJ 2010 APHC 273] and a Division Bench decision of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta reported in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Kutiswar Pramanik [CDJ 2009 Cal HC 671].

7. The Andhra Pradesh High Court found that a meticulous examination, of the jurisdictional issue arises only if an enquiry is made as to whether the filing of a claim petition at a particular place would be contrary to the provisions of the Act and also when it causes undue hardship to the respondents to defend their case. Therein the residence of the claimants, as also the office of the APSRTC, whose vehicle was involved in the accident, was situated in Kurnool; wherein the claim was filed. The return of the claim, for presentation before the proper forum, by the Tribunal, was inter alia on the ground that the Managing Director of the APSRTC, is the proper person to be sued. The finding that the claim petition was maintainable at Kurnool itself, will not be strictly of any help in the present case, since the High Court found the residence of the claimant to be in Kurnool.

8. Before the Calcutta High Court, the issue that came up before the Division Bench was on a conflict of opinion, with respect to the maintainability of a claim petition, before the Tribunal which, had jurisdiction over the Regional Office of the Insurance Company. The Division Bench found that such an application would not be maintainable since the words 'carries on business' is absent in sub-section (2) of Section 166 insofar as the defendant was concerned. However, it was held that a claim would be maintainable before the Tribunal, which had the jurisdiction over the place where the branch office of the Insurance Company, which issued the subject policy is situated.

9. When referring to a corporate body, the residence was found to be where the business is c