Key Points from the Legal Document:

• The Motor Vehicles Act is a benevolent legislation that aims to protect accident victims, and a hyper-technical approach in such cases should be avoided (!) (!) .

• Jurisdiction for filing a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act can be established based on the location of the accident, the residence or place of business of the claimant, or where the defendant resides (!) (!) .

• The primary issue in the case was whether the tribunal had territorial jurisdiction, given that the accident did not occur in Chandigarh and the claimants did not reside there at the time of filing (!) (!) .

• Evidence such as a ration card indicating residence in Chandigarh was presented to establish jurisdiction, but the tribunal initially dismissed the claim on jurisdictional grounds (!) (!) .

• The courts emphasized that objections to jurisdiction are generally considered technical and should not be grounds for dismissing a claim unless prejudice or failure of justice is demonstrated (!) (!) .

• A decree or order passed without proper jurisdiction is considered null and void, but distinctions exist between jurisdiction over the subject matter and territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction; only the former renders a judgment invalid (!) (!) .

• The courts highlighted that in the absence of prejudice to the opposing party, a tribunal's lack of jurisdiction does not automatically nullify proceedings, especially when the tribunal had jurisdiction over the subject matter (!) (!) .

• The case was remanded for fresh consideration, with a directive to decide the matter within a specified period, emphasizing the importance of resolving claims fairly without undue technicality (!) (!) .

• Overall, the legal approach favors a broad interpretation of jurisdictional provisions to ensure access to justice, and technical objections should not hinder rightful claims unless they cause prejudice or injustice (!) (!) .