This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section

173(1) of M.V.Act, challenging the judgment and award

dated 20.02.2019 passed in MVC No.2200/2014 by the

MACT-IV, at Vijayapur (for short 'the Tribunal').

Brief facts of the case are as under:

That, on 15.08.2014 at about 18:30 hours, on

Faltan-Pandharpur road, near Market Yard Natepute, the

driver of TATA Truck bearing Reg.No.MH-06/AQ-6796

drove the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and

dashed to the ongoing bike bearing Reg.No.MH-15/R-2235

and caused the accident. Due to the said accident, one

Sambaji Kadam sustained injuries as he was proceeding as

pillion rider and on the way to hospital, he succumbed to

the injuries. Hence, the legal heirs of said Sambaji

Kadam filed claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of

compensation under Section 166 of M.V.Act.

- 4 -

The said petition was resisted by respondent

Nos.2 i.e. insurance company before the Tribunal on the

ground that the Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to

decide the matter since the second respondent i.e., the

insurance company office is not situated within the

jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Further, the accident took

place in Maharashtra State and the claimants are also the

residence of Maharashtra. Hence, the respondent No.2

prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

After hearing both the parties and perusing the

material on record, the Tribunal framed the following:

ISSUES

Whether the petitioners prove that

on 15.08.2014 at about 06:30 p.m.

near Market Yard, on Faltan to

Pandharpur road, Natepute, one

Sambaji Kadam met with a road

traffic

accident

on

account

of

actionable negligence on the part

of the driver of a Lorry bearing its

Reg.No.MH-06/AQ-6796

and

sustained fatal injuries?

- 5 -

Whether

the

respondent

No.2-

insurance

company

proves

the

violation of terms and conditions of

the insurance policy?

Whether the petitioners prove the

age, income and occupation of the

deceased?

Whether the petitioners are entitled

for compensation? If so, to what

quantum and from which of the

respondents?

What order or award?

ADDL. ISSUE

Whether this tribunal is having

jurisdiction?

The Tribunal after assessment of the oral and

documentary evidence, answered in the negative to the

additional issue and held that the Tribunal is not having

jurisdiction to decide the claim petition. Accordingly, the

tribunal returned the claim petition to the claimants to

present

the

same

before

the

Tribunal

for

having

jurisdiction, vide judgment dated 20.02.2019.

- 6 -

6.

The said judgment has been challenged in this

appeal.

7.

We have heard the learned counsel for the

appellants so also the Insurance company i.e. contesting

respondent.

8.

On careful perusal of the material available on

record, the accident and the death of the husband of first

appellant and father of appellant No.2 and 3 and son of

appellant No.4 and 5 is not disputed in this case. The

Tribunal though framed issues to that effect, but not

answered the same and held that those issues does not

survive for consideration. The Tribunal returned the

petition filed by the petitioners only on the point of

jurisdiction.

9.

The learned counsel for appellants would

contend

that,

all

the

appellants/claimants

are

the

permanent residents of Vijayapura. Hence, according to

him though the accident took place in Maharashtra there is

- 7 -

no bar to file claim petition at Vijayapura since the

claimants are permanent residents of Vijayapura. On

perusal of cause title of the petition filed by the claimants

before the Tribunal, depicts that the claimants are the

residents of Chadchan, Indi Taluka, Vijayapura. However,

the Tribunal while considering additional issue in respect of

the jurisdiction, held that the claimants are neither having

permanent address nor postal address at Vijayapura. But

according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the

claimants are engaged in business at Vijayapura and they

are residing at Vijayapura. As could be see