IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI C.R.P.No.5963 of 2025 Saranraj ... Petitioner vs.

1.Sumathi

2.The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, No.110, Second Floor, J.N. Street, Pondicherry. ... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the return dated 14.10.2025 made in MCOP. SR.No.766 of 2025 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Court, Puducherry and direct the Principal District Judge, Puducherry, to number the petition in MCOP SR.No.766 of 2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Ananthasekar

ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the return dated 14.10.2025 made in MCOP. SR.No.766 of 2025 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Court, Puducherry and direct the Principal District Judge, Puducherry, to number the petition in MCOP SR.No.766 of 2025.

2. Heard Mr.T.Ananthasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner is the claimant in MCOP.SR.No.766 of 2025 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Court, Puducherry. The petitioner resides at Villupuram. The accident had occurred at Thirukkanur, Villupuram District near Pondicherry. Citing the Regional Office of the Insurance Company being situate at Pondicherry. the original claim petition has been presented before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Puducherry. However, the said application was returned to be presented before the competent court. The return was complied by the petitioner stating that the Pondicherry Tribunal has jurisdiction in view of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, despite compliance, the court once again returned the claim petition on the very same ground. The said return is under challenge in the present revision petition.

4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have also gone through the records. The petitioner has fairly conceded that the petitioner resides outside the jurisdiction of the Principal District Court, Puducherry and the accident also occurred only outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Puducherry. However, since the Insurance Company has its Regional Office within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Puducherry, the petition has been presented. The learned counsel invited attention of this Court to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and contended that there is no bar for the claim petition being filed at the option of the claimant, even where the respondent is carrying on business or had an office, within the jurisdiction of the particular court. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, as repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court and therefore, when Section 166 of the Act enables the claimant to move a claim petition invoking the jurisdiction of the court where the Insurance Company carries on business, then the OP is maintainable, even according to the mandate of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

5. In the light of the above, I am inclined to set aside the return dated

30.06.2025. The Registry shall return the original OP to the counsel for the petitioner giving an acknowledgment, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the copy of the order, the paper shall be represented by the petitioner before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puducherry and the learned Principal District Judge, Puducherry / Tribunal shall take the OP on file, if it is otherwise in order, within jurisdiction put against the revision petitioner.

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

24.11.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking / Non-speaking order mtl P.B.BALAJI, J.

mtl To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Court, Puducherry.

2. The VR Section, High Court, Madras.

24.11.2025