Claim applications under Section 166(2) of the M.V. Act can be filed at locations where the defendant or insurance company operate, emphasizing judicial flexibility in establishing claims.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. ROUTRAY, J.

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.

2. Present appeal by the claimant is directed against judgment dated 24.01.2019 of learned 1^st M.A.C.T., Jagatsinghpur in M.A.C. Case No.1266/2014, wherein learned Tribunal has rejected the claim on contest by observing that the claim application is not maintainable.

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.

4. Section 166 (2) of the M.V. Act, 1988 after 1994 amendment reads as follows:

“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 limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed.”

5. In Malati Sadar vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others , (2016) 3 SCC 43 , it has been observed that, “the provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hypertechnical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated. There is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting party in such cases, has its business. In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure of justice. Moreover, in view of categorical decision of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 244 contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court failed to notice the provision of Section 21 CPC .”

6. In the case at hand, the owner-Respondent No.1 is undisputedly a resident of Jagatsinghpur and the insurer-Respondent No.2 is carrying his business at Jagatsinghpur also. Therefore, the observation of the Tribunal to hold the claim application not maintainable is found unsustainable. The same is set aside and it is held that, the claim application before 1^st M.A.C.T., Jagatsinghpur is maintainable.

7. So far as the delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the observations of the learned Tribunal in this regard are also erroneous. Law is well settled regarding standard of proof to be maintained in a claim application concerning motor vehicular accident. [See Bimla Devi and Others vs. Satbir Singh and Others , (2013) 14 SCC 345 , Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others , (2009) 13 SCC 530 , Sunita and others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others , (2020) 13 SCC 484, Anita Sharma and others vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another , (2021) 1 SCC 171 , Janabai and others vs. I.C.I.C.I. Lambord Insurance Company Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 994]. It is now settled that extremely strict proof of facts as per Evidence Act may not be adhered to religiously and some amount of flexibility has to be given. The claimants are required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of pr