Order

1. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition vide judgment dated 30.08.2005, passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur District, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘MACT, Jaipur District’) in M.A.C. No. 393/2003, the claimant-appellant (for short ‘claimant’) has filed the present appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the claimant, while narrating the brief facts of the case, submitted that on 24.12.2000, the claimant was travelling with his friend on a motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ-14-24M- 7420, and when they reached near Banskho Phatak Nallah, a truck bearing registration No. RJ-29-G-0494, being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, hit the motorcycle. As a result of the said accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries.

2.1 Thereafter, on 25.01.2001, the claimant filed a claim petition, bearing MAC Case No.201/2001 (for short ‘first petition’) before the learned MACT, Jaipur District. While the said claim petition was pending, on 10.12.2001, the claimant filed another claim petition, bearing MAC Case No.2738/2001 (for short ‘second petition’), related to the same accident, before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘MACT, Jaipur City’).

2.2 On 27.04.2002, the claimant filed an application before the learned MACT, Jaipur District seeking to withdraw the first petition on the ground that the first petition was filed due to a bona fide mistake. It was further stated that the claimant was willing to pursue the second petition, which had been subsequently filed before MACT, Jaipur City. The learned MACT, Jaipur District, vide its order dated 15.05.2002, allowed the claimant to withdraw the said petition at a cost of Rs.5,000/-, to be deposited with District Legal Aid Board, and dismissed the first petition on 04.06.2002.

2.3 Learned counsel further submitted that the claimant continued to pursue the proceedings in the second petition filed before the learned MACT, Jaipur City, and when the said petition was pending at the stage of recording of evidence, the Insurance Company raised an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, the claimant filed an application before the learned MACT, Jaipur City seeking transfer of the matter to the learned MACT, Jaipur District for want of jurisdiction. However, vide order dated 24.04.2003, the said application was rejected by the learned MACT, Jaipur City, holding that it had no authority to transfer the same. On the same date, the claimant filed another application to withdraw the said petition with liberty to file a fresh claim petition before a court having territorial jurisdiction. The said application was allowed vide order dated 17.06.2003, by the learned MACT, Jaipur City, permitting the claimant to file a fresh claim petition before a court of competent jurisdiction.

2.4 Learned counsel also submitted that on 17.07.2003, the claimant filed a fresh claim petition, bearing MAC Case No.393/2003 (for short ‘third petition’), before the learned MACT, Jaipur District. The aforesaid petition was dismissed by the learned MACT, Jaipur District, vide impugned judgment dated 30.08.2005, holding that since the first petition filed before MACT, Jaipur District, had already been dismissed by the same Tribunal, therefore, the filing of a new claim petition on the same facts was clearly an abuse of the process of law.

2.5 He further contended that the learned MACT, Jaipur District was not justified in dismissing the third petition on the ground that the first petition filed by the claimant before the same Tribunal had already been dismissed. He also contended that no adjudication was made upon the earlier petition on merits; rather, it was dismissed at the request of the claimant himself to pursue another petition already pending before the learned MACT, Jaipur City.

2.6 He further submitted that the objection raised by the Insurance Company regardin