1. Heard Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the National Insurance Company and Mr. Nair, learned advocate for Oriental Insurance Company- respondent No.6.
2. In light of the facts of present case and the submissions made by learned advocates and the nature and effect of the order impugned in present petition, the petition requires consideration. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Mr. Mehta, learned advocate and Mr. Nair, learned advocate appearing for the respondents has waived service of Notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. At the request of learned advocate for the petitioner and with consent of learned advocates for the respondents and having regard to the facts of the case, petitions are taken up for final hearing and decision today.
3. The petitioner has prayed for below mentioned relief/s:-
“11 (A).........
(B) The Hon'ble Court may pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in nature of certiorari or appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 23rd February, 2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) Ahmedabad city below Exh.56 and 57 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1268 of 2003.
(C) The Hon'ble Court may pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in nature of certiorari or appropriate writ, order or direction to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Ahmedabad City, to hear the Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1268 of 2003 along with the Motor Accident Claims Petition Nos. 1269 of 2003 and 1270 of 2003.
(D) ”
4. So far as the relevant facts involved in and leading to the petitions are concerned it emerges from the record that in connection with a motor accident, certain proceedings by way of Motor Accident Claim Petitions were instituted by the injured persons / heirs of the deceased persons before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, since the claimants are residents of Ahmedabad city. While proceedings were pending before the learned Tribunal at Ahmedabad, the opponent insurance company tendered application somewhere in 2005 to frame preliminary issue about jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal to entertain the said Motor Accident Claim Petitions. The objection raised by the insurance company as regards learned Tribunal's jurisdiction was considered by the learned tribunal and after considering submission on behalf of the insurance company learned tribunal, vide order dated 23.2.2006, accepted the objection raised by the insurance company and allowed the application, holding, inter alia, that for want of territorial jurisdiction the applications were not maintainable. In the said order dated 23.2.2006 learned tribunal has observed, inter alia, that:-
“24. The petitioners in all the claim petitions fail to prove and establish the jurisdiction of this tribunal, and therefore, the present claim petitions are required to be returned to the petitioners for presentation before the appropriate tribunal as laid down in Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ”
5. It appears that subsequently certain claimants / heirs filed Misc. Application No.31 of 2006 dated 27.2.2006 seeking review of the said order dated 23.2.2006.
6 At this stage it is necessary to mention that initially 5 claims petitions were filed and the learned Tribunal vide said order dated 23.2.2006 rejected all five petitions on the ground of want of jurisdiction. Subsequently two petitioners out of the said 5 claim petitions (i.e. claimants / heirs of two applications) preferred Misc. Application seeking review of the order dated 23.2.2006. Learned tribunal considered the said application and allowed the said application vide order dated 19.9.2006. The claimants / heirs in other three applications did not prefer review application at the relevant time before the learned tribunal for reasons mentioned in the petition viz. at the relevant time petitioners were not able to place on record any proof about their residence.
7. However after learned tribunal passed the order dated 19.9.2006 allowing the said review applications preferred by two claimants, present petitioner directly approached this Court by way of present petitions which appears to have been filed in March 2007. After hearing the petitioner the Court directed office to issue Notice and since then petitions have remained pending.
8. Now, in backdrop of aforesaid facts learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 23.2.2006 passed by the leaned tribunal dismissing claims petitions on the ground that the tribunal does not have territorial jurisdiction, is misconceived and contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the claimants can file petitions seeking compensation, at either of the three places as contemplated under Section 166 Act however instead of appreciating the said aspect learned tribunal has rejected the claim petitions and that therefore impugned order passed by the tribunal deserves to be set aside.
9. In order to appreciate contentions raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner it would be appropriate to take into account provision under section 166 of the Act which reads thus:-
“166. Application for compensation.
(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made--
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.
(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed:
Provided that where no claim for compensation under Section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.
(3) .............
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.”
10. Even on plain reading of the provision it is clear that the claimant can file petition either at place where accident occurred or at the place where the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the tribunal where the defendant resides.
11. The petitioners' claim that they are resident of Ahmedabad City.
11.1 The aforesaid factual aspect is not in dispute.
11.2 During hearing of present petitions learned advocates for the respondents have not disputed the factual aspects.
11.3 Actually learned advocates for the respondent insurance company have fairly conceded the fact that claim petitions by the petitioners can be entertained by the learned tribunal at Ahmedabad.
Besides this, another relevant fact viz. other MAC Petitions (filed by other injured persons / heirs or legal representatives of deceased in the same accident) are entertained by the learned Tribunal at Ahmedabad and the same are pending.
11.4 However learned advocates for the respondent have also submitted that at the time of deciding claim petitions learned tribunal should while deciding issue related to the interest liability take into account the delay which has been caused from 2006 until now.
12. Having regard to the provisions contained under Section 166 of the Act and the fact that the petitioners' assertion about the resident is not in dispute and also having regard to the fact that two claim petitions arising from the same accident are being considered by the learned tribunal at Ahmedabad, it appears appropriate to pass below mentioned order:-
(A) The petitions are accepted and allowed the impugned order dated 23.2.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary) Ahmedabad city in Motor Accident Claims Petitions Nos.1268 of 2003, 1271 of 2003 & 1322 of 2003 are set aside and the proceedings are remitted to the learned tribunal.
(B) Learned Principal City Civil Judge may pass appropriate order placing the claims petitions of present petitioners before the same learned tribunal where other two Motor Accident Claims Petitions arising from the same accident are presently pending.
(C) It is clarified that it would be open to the insurance company to make submissions with regard to the issue of interest for the intervening period is concerned.
(D) While considering the said aspect learned tribunal would also take into account that the the petitioners have vigilantly prosecuted their remedy and the petitions have remained pending in this Court from March 2007 and the proceedings have been adjourned from time to time due to reasons which cannot be solely attributed to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid clarification petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(K.M.THAKER,J.) Suresh*