1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 588 of 2022 1. Keshraj Dewangan S/o Kaleshram Dewangan, aged about 17 years R/o Village- Ward No.- 18, Dewanganpara, Beldarpara, Tahsil- Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) At Present- Quarter No.- 41, Darri Road Korba, Tahsil and District- Korba (C.G.) 2. Chhatrapal Dewangan S/o Kaleshram Dewangan, aged about 11 years R/o Village- Ward No.- 18, Dewanganpara, Beldarpara, Tahsil- Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) At Present- Quarter No.- 41, Darri Road Korba, Tahsil and District- Korba (C.G.) 3. Sukhdev Dewangan S/o Natthulal Dewangan, aged about 42 years R/o Village- Ward No.- 18, Dewanganpara, Beldarpara, Tahsil- Champa, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) At Present- Quarter No.- 41, Darri Road Korba, Tahsil And District- Korba (C.G.) ... Appellants versus 1. Kaleshram Dewangan S/o Late Ramkrishan Dewangan, aged about 39 years R/o- Devi Chowk, Siwni, Police Station- Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 2. Branch Manager Tata A. I. G. Company Limited, 4th Floor, Gwalani Chamber, Office No.- T- 08, Vyapara Vihar Main Road, Near I.C.I.C.I. Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents For appellants : Shri Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Shri M.K. Baeg, Advocate For respondent No.2 : Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Advocate 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order on Board dated 24/04/2026 This is an appeal filed against the impugned award dated 29.11.2021passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (for short the “Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 111/2019 the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short the “MV Act”) has been dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction and also for not having been presented by the competent person. 2. The appellants/claimants filed a claim petition before Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba. From perusal of the record it appears that the appellants/claimants are resident of District Janjgir Champa. Respondents No. 1 also appears to be a resident of the same district whereas the respondent No.2 appears to be the resident of district Bilaspur. Though in the cause title temporary address is mentioned as district Korba, learned Tribunal after considering the material on record found that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. Tribunal also observed that the respondent No.1 was the husband of the deceased and that the claim petition was filed by the appellants/claimants through natural guardian who happens to be their uncle, which is not permissible in law. 3. Counsel for the appellants after arguing for some time submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to file the claim petition before the competent Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Janjgir Champa. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 does not oppose this request but counsel for respondent No.2 does oppose it. 3 4. As the claim case has not been decided on merit rather it has been dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction and also for not having been presented by the competent person, this Court is inclined to grant the request made by the counsel for the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellants/claimants to file claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act before the competent Claims Tribunal at Janjgir Champa. Needless to say that this appeal remained pending consideration for a sufficient long time, the question of limitation shall not come in the way of the concerned Tribunal while deciding the claim to be presented by the appellants/claimants. Further, the concerned Tribunal shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order and shall decide the claim strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2026.04.25 14:14:37 +0530