The jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal extends beyond technical territorial limits, provided that no failure of justice occurs, allowing compensation claims even if they arise outside traditional jurisdictional boundaries.

ORDER :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard Mr. B.N. Rath, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent no.2-company.

3. The present appeal has been filed inter alia challenging the judgment dated 16.12.2022 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-3rd M.A.C.T., Jharsuguda in MAC Case No. 43 of 2020. By the said judgment, the Tribunal refused to entertain the claim application and returned the same to the appellants on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

4. It is the case of the appellants that on the death of the deceased in a motor accident on 13.01.2014, the claimants made the claim by filing MAC Case No.43 of 2020 before the Tribunal.

4.1. It is contended that even though there is no bar for making such an application before the Tribunal in question, but on the ground that the accident had taken place in an area which does not come within the jurisdiction of Tribunal in question, claim application of the appellants was not entertained with passing of the impugned judgment.

4.2. In support of his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the appellants relied on the provisions contained under Section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (2) of the Act reads as follows:-

“166. Application for compensation. –

xx xx xx

(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, 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 whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:

4.3. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the appellants also relied on the decision of the apex Court rendered on the issue in question so reported in 2016 (1) TAC (SC) 337 (Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.). The apex Court in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of such judgment has held as follows:-

“9. The question for consideration thus is whether the Tribunal at Kolkata had the jurisdiction to decide the claim application under Section 166 of the Act when the accident took place outside Kolkata jurisdiction and the claimant also resided outside Kolkata jurisdiction, but the respondent being a juristic person carried on business at Kolkata. Further question is whether in absence of failure of justice, the High Court could set aside the award of the Tribunal on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

10. In our view, the matter is fully covered by decisions of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra). It will be worthwhile to quote the statutory provision of Section 166 (2) of the Act :

“166. Application for compensation.— * * * (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, 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 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.”

11. In Mantoo Sarkar (supra), the insurance company had a branch at Nainital. Accident took place outside the jurisdiction of Nainital Tribunal. The claimant remained in the hospital at Bareilly and thereafter shifted to Pilibhi