JUDGMENT :

Alok Mahra, J.

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellants/claimants against the judgment and order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants was returned on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per record, are that on 22.01.2020, a motor accident occurred in District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, involving a motorcycle bearing registration no. UP12AR1710 allegedly driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 3. In the said accident, one Ravi @ Ravikumar, a resident of Village Pilkhani, District Muzaffarnagar sustained grievous injuries due to which he died. Subsequently, the deceased’s legal heirs (present appellants/claimants) shifted to Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand, for employment and filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 11 of 2020 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal. The respondents, in their written statement, raised a preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, contending that the accident occurred in Shamli and the claimants were residents of Muzaffarnagar, hence the Tribunal at Pauri Garhwal lacked jurisdiction. The claimants contested the said objection by filing reply; however, the learned Tribunal returned the claim petition for want of territorial jurisdiction, leading to the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality and is contrary to the spirit of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act’). It is argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the National Insurance Company Limited, i.e., respondent no.1, has its business office at Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal, and therefore, the Tribunal at Pauri Garhwal had the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would further submit that Section 166(2) of the Act clearly provides that a claim petition may, at the option of the claimant, be filed before the Claims Tribunal within whose local limits—(a) the accident occurred, or (b) the claimant resides or carries on business, or (c) the defendant resides or carries on business. It is further contended that the law does not require the claimant’s residence to be permanent; even a temporary residence for employment or livelihood is sufficient to establish jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal rejected the claim on a narrow and technical view, thereby defeating the beneficial purpose of the Act.

5. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2016) 3 SCC 43, wherein it has been categorically held that a claim petition may be filed at a place where the insurance company has its business or branch office, even if the accident or the claimant’s permanent residence is elsewhere. Paragraph 16 of the said judgment reads as under:

“16. The provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hyper technical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated. There is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting parties in such cases, has its business. In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure of justice. Moreover, in view of categorical decision of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar (supra), contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court failed to notice the provision of Section 21 CPC.”

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent– Insurance Company supported the impugned