The claimant must prove the accident and injuries through relevant documents and evidence. Territorial jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicle Act should be interpreted to facilitate remedies for victims of accidents, without adopting a hyper-technical approach.

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the Judgment and decree dated 24.06.2005 passed in MCOP. No. 189 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ I Additional Sub Court, Gobichettipalyam.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous has been preferred against he Judgment and decree dated 24.06.2005 passed in MCOP. No. 189 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ I Additional Sub Court, Gobichettipalyam.

Brief facts leading to the claim application are as follows;

2. On 23.12.2002 the petitioner was travelling to his native place from Mettupalayam to Annur main road in a Mini Auto after unloading the things. At about 1.pm when the said auto was going from west to east direction in a slow manner on the extreme left side of the road, at that time, the 1st respondent/ driver of the lorry bearing registration no. TN 28-F-9172 came in the opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and dashed against the Mini Auto, in which the petitioner was travelled. As a result, the petitioner was thrown away from the Auto, his left hand was fractured, two tooth are broken and sustained simple injuries all over the body. The Mini Auto got fully damaged. After the accident the petitioner was immediately admitted in C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore and also taken for subsequent treatment in Richmen Hospital, Coimabtore, so incurred huge amount for medial expenses. Hence, he claimed sum of Rs.5,00,00/- as compensation.

3. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company in the counter has denied the manner of the accident and further stated that the petitioner has not added the driver of the mini auto as a party. The petitioner is bad for non-joinder of parties. The other aspects regarding age, occupation and income of the petitioner was also denied as excessive and hence sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The tribunal after analysing the evidence and documents, has given findings that the petitioner has not filed claim petition before the concerned jurisdictional Court and also observed that the accident itself is doubtful and dismissed the claim petition.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant has preferred this appeal to set aside the order of the tribunal and for compensation.

6. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has stated that when there was no specific pleading in the counter statement filed by the 3rd respondent with regard to the jurisdiction, the dismissal of the claim petition by the tribunal on the ground of jurisdiction is wrong. The tribunal ought to have decided the same. The other grievance raised in the appeal is that the claimant being a coolie, he has to work wherever he is deputed, so the strict adherence of residence proof for load man is amounts to denial of compensation. The tribunal ought to have return the entire case bundle to represent the same with appropriate jurisdiction court instead of dismissing entire claim petition. Hence, this appeal has been field to set aside the order of the tribunal.

7. Heard both sides and perused the documents available on record.

8. It is argued by the appellant that the petitioner is a coolie and the accident occurred while returning to his native place in a Mini Auto. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligence driving on the part of the driver of the lorry and he sustained severe injuries including fracture in his hand and in the ribs.

9. It is further argued by the appellant that immediately after the accident he was given treatment in CMC, Coimbatore and Richmen Hospital and Rex Hospital, for which relevant documents were placed before the tribunal by the appellants. Ex.P1 -FIR , Ex.P2 -Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, Ex.P3 Wound Certificate,Ex.P5 Discharge Summary and Ex.P7- Medical Bills were filed substantiate the claim.

10. The claim of the appellant is that the accident had occurred in Annur- Mettupalayam Road and his residence is at Alathur Kombai Village. Therefore, the mai