IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (238) Reserved on: 12.02.2026 Pronounced on: 20.02.2026 Uploaded on: 20.02.2026

1. FAO No.3216 of 2005 (O&M)

Yashpal ... Appellant Versus Kirti Bhushan & Others ... Respondents AND

2. FAO No.3217 of 2005 (O&M)

Pushpa Devi & Another ... Appellants Versus Kirti Bhushan & Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Dinesh Maurya, Advocate for Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Kumar Phogat, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.

Mr. Vinodh Chaudhari, Advocate for respondent No.3 *****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J.

1. These two connected appeals arise out of the common award dated 31.01.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, whereby both the claim petitions filed by the appellants were dismissed solely on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction without entering into the merits of the case.

BACKGROUND FACTS

2. On 02.11.2002 at about 5:15 p.m., Sonu Partap (deceased) and Yashpal (injured claimant) were proceeding on a motorcycle from Village Indri to Village Gangar. When they reached the area of Village Samoura on Ladwa- Karnal Road, a jeep bearing registration No.UP-12-C-7825, driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction, hit the motorcycle and caused the accident. Sonu Partap died on the spot. Yashpal sustained multiple grievous injuries including head injury, loss of memory and fractures. FIR No.325 dated 02.11.2002 was registered at Police Station Sadar, Karnal against the driver of offending vehicle.

3. The claim petitions were filed before the MACT, Karnal. Respondents No.1 & 2 (owner and driver) in their written statements admitted the accident but attributed negligence to the deceased. Respondent No.3 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Karnal) contested the petitions and raised the objection of lack of jurisdiction. The learned Tribunal framed issues and, without deciding issues on negligence and quantum, dismissed both petitions holding that the claimants failed to prove that they were residing within the jurisdiction of Karnal MACT on the date of accident. The learned Tribunal observed that the earlier petitions filed at Ambala MACT were withdrawn and the documents (matriculation certificate, ITI certificate, ration card) did not conclusively prove residence on

02.11.2002. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants have preferred these appeals.

CONTENTIONS

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal committed a patent error of law by ignoring the first and foremost ground of jurisdiction provided under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 i.e. “the area in which the accident occurred”. The accident admittedly took place within District Karnal. The FIR was registered at PS Sadar, Karnal. All respondents admitted the accident in their pleadings. Therefore, the Karnal MACT had unquestionable jurisdiction irrespective of the place of residence of the claimants. Reliance is placed on the plain language of Section 166(2) and the benevolent nature of the legislation. It is further submitted that withdrawal of earlier petitions from Ambala MACT on the ground of jurisdiction is not a bar to re-filing at the correct forum. The Tribunal’s finding is perverse and contrary to the object of the Act.

5. Learned counsel for the insurer (respondent No.3) supported the impugned award and submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the petitions on the ground of jurisdiction. It was contended that the owner and driver of the offending vehicle hail from District Muzaffarnagar (U.P.) and the petitions were not maintainable before the Karnal Tribunal.

OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of both appeals and the impugned judgment.

7. At the outset, It is important to reiterate the Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as it stood at the relevant time) which reads as