Malaya Ranjan Kanungo vs Dibakar Naik

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Ori) 499

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.P.ROUTRAY
Malaya Ranjan Kanungo – Appellant
Versus
Dibakar Naik – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : P.K. Mishra
For the Respondent: G.P. Dutta

Table of Content
1. hearing of the appeal (Para 1 , 2)
2. claim application jurisdiction issues (Para 3 , 6)
3. interpretation of section 166 (2) of m.v. act (Para 4 , 5)
4. standard of proof in claim applications (Para 7 , 8)
5. reversal of tribunal's decision (Para 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellant- claimant and Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

3. It is seen that the accident took place on 17.9.2011 at Damana Chhak in Bhubaneswar and the claim application was filed before the learned 1^st M.A.C.T., Jagatsinghpur. Learned Tribunal has observed that as per Section 166 (2) of the M.V. Act, the claim application should have been presented before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and not at Jagatsinghpur. Such observation of the learned Tribunal is completely erroneous.

“166 (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 lim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document