Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, J.

The instant civil revision arises from an order dated 14.10.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short, 'the Tribunal') whereby application under Order 7 Rule 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, 'CPC') raising an objection of territorial jurisdiction, has been dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are to the effect that on 11.07.2015 Ajmer Singh (since deceased) son of claimants i.e. respondent No. 1 and 2 was going on a motorcycle from village Madanheri to Kharar District SAS Nagar Mohali, when he reached on Randhawa Kharar Road, he was hit by a motorcycle bearing registration number PB65AB9734 coming from opposite direction being driven by Rajat Pal Singh respondent No. 3 which is insured with the petitioner insurance company. As a result of accident Ajmer Singh fell down and suffered multiple injuries and later on died in the hospital. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, claimants are parents of deceased-Ajmer Singh. They filed an application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short, 'the Act'). During the pendency of claim petition, petitioner-insurance company moved an application under Order 7 Rule 10A CPC for return of the petition on the ground that court at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to try the claim petition because neither the accident has taken place within territory of Chandigarh nor the claimants are residents of Chandigarh. The address given in the claim petition is incorrect and they are not residing at that place, they are residing at village Madanheri Tehsil Kharar District Mohali. It was prayed that the claim petition be returned for filing at Mohali. The claimants filed reply to the application stating that they are presently residents of village Palsora, Chandigarh. The Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the claimants are residing in village Palsora which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Chandigarh and the said address has been given in the claim petition. Aggrieved against the impugned order, present petition has been preferred.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that territorial jurisdiction is governed by Section 166(2) of the Act. The reference to this section was made and it was contended that neither the claimants are residing at the given address nor the accident has occurred in the territorial jurisdiction of the Chandigarh. The accident had taken place in the jurisdiction of District Mohali, as such the Tribunal at Chandigarh has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. He further contended that the dasti summons indicates that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not residing at the address given in the claim petition. Reference to the report of process server was made. The petition is liable to be returned for filing before the appropriate tribunal having territorial jurisdiction.

I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners.

Admitted facts are to the effect that Ajmer Singh died due to the injury suffered in a vehicular accident involving the motorcycle bearing registration number PB 65 AB 9734. Respondent No. 4 is the registered owner of the motorcycle which is insured with the petitioner-company. Respondent No. 3, brother of respondent No. 4, was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.

From bare perusal of subsection (2) of Section 166 of the Act, it is clear that the claimant is having four options, where he can file claim petitions. He can file it either before the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over "the area in which the accident occurred", or before 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". The language employed in subsection (2) makes the intention of the legislature very clear. It