FAO No.1783 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 244 SONVEER SINGH @ SONU Vs KHEM CHAND AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Hardeep Singh Dhillon, Advocate Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate HARKESH MANUJA, J. CM-6780-CII-202 This is an application for condonation of delay of the appeal. Notice of the application was issued on has been filed on behalf of the respondents. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is affidavit, sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Consequently, the application is allowed. Delay of condoned. MAIN CASE: By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram, (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the claim petition preferred at the instance of appellants was FAO No.1783 of 2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1783 of 2024 Date of Decision: SONVEER SINGH @ SONU KHEM CHAND AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Hardeep Singh Dhillon, Advocate Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3 **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. 2024 This is an application for condonation of delay of Notice of the application was issued on has been filed on behalf of the respondents. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is affidavit, sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Consequently, the application is allowed. Delay of 309 days in By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram, (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the claim petition preferred at the instance of appellants was IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1783 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.09.2026 ......Appellant(s) ....Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Hardeep Singh Dhillon, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. respondent No.3. This is an application for condonation of delay of 309 days in filing Notice of the application was issued on 04.08.2026, however, no reply For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Consequently, days in filing the present appeal is By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the 07.02.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram, (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the claim petition preferred at the instance of appellants was 1 days in filing no reply supported by an affidavit, sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay. Consequently, filing the present appeal is 07.02.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram, (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the claim petition preferred at the instance of appellants was MOHMED ATIK 2026.09.11 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO No.1783 of 2024 ordered to be returned for presentation before the competent Tribunal on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 2. Briefly stating, claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short 'the Act', came to be fil before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular a Car bearing Registration No. respondent No.1 2.1 The claim petition was contested by No.3-Insurance Company Gurugram lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and, therefore, the same deserved to be returned for presentation before the Tribunal of competent jurisdiction. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. 4. A perusal of Section 166 (2) of the Act stipulates that an application for compensation arising out of the accident can be filed either: i) ii) iii) iv) 5. In the present case, as per records, respondent No.3 Insurance Company through its Branch is carrying out business at Gurugram. In such circumstances, as one of the respondents is carrying out its business at Gurugram, FAO No.1783 of 2024 (O&M) ordered to be returned for presentation before the competent Tribunal on the d of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Briefly stating, claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short 'the Act', came to be fil before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident dated bearing Registration No. UP-85-X-4232 1 in rash and negligent manner. The claim petition was contested by Insurance Company raised preliminary objection that the learned Tribunal at Gurugram lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and, the same deserved to be returned for presentation before the Tribunal of competent jurisdiction. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the A perusal of Section 166 (2) of the Act stipulates that an application for compensation arising out of the accident can be filed either: Before the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred; Before the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides; Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant carries on business; or iv) Within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. In the present case, as per records, respondent No.3 Insurance Company through its Branch is carrying out business at Gurugram. In such circumstances, as one of the respondents is carrying out its business at Gurugram, ordered to be returned for presentation before the competent Tribunal on the Briefly stating, claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short 'the Act', came to be filed at the instance of appellant before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram on account of accident dated 10.05.2019 involving 4232 allegedly being driven by The claim petition was contested by the respondents. Respondent preliminary objection that the learned Tribunal at Gurugram lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and, the same deserved to be returned for presentation before the Tribunal of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the A perusal of Section 166 (2) of the Act stipulates that an application for compensation arising out of the accident can be filed either: Before the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred; Before the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose resides; Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant carries on business; or Within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant In the present case, as per records, respondent No.3 Insurance Company through its Branch is carrying out business at Gurugram. In such circumstances, as one of the respondents is carrying out its business at Gurugram, 2 ordered to be returned for presentation before the competent Tribunal on the Briefly stating, claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor ed at the instance of appellant before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram on account of involving allegedly being driven by . Respondent preliminary objection that the learned Tribunal at Gurugram lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and, the same deserved to be returned for presentation before the Tribunal of I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the A perusal of Section 166 (2) of the Act stipulates that an application Before the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in Before the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimant carries on business; or Within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant In the present case, as per records, respondent No.3 Insurance Company through its Branch is carrying out business at Gurugram. In such circumstances, as one of the respondents is carrying out its business at Gurugram, MOHMED ATIK 2026.09.11 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO No.1783 of 2024 the learned Motor Accident Claims Tri possessed the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the claim petition. Support in this regard can be drawn from the judgment of vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported as (2016) 3 SC that Section 166(2) is a beneficial provision intended to facilitate access to justice for victims of motor accidents and must receive a liberal interpretation. The Supreme Court further held that there would be no impediment in m claim petition before the Tribunal within whose territorial jurisdiction the Insurance Company carries on business, particularly when no prejudice is shown to have been caused on account of such choice of forum. The relevant observations contained in para 14 thereof is reproduced as under: provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisd facilitating remedies for the victims of in such matters can hardly be appreciated. There is no bar to a peti main contesting part is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure of justice. Moreover, in view of categorical decision of this Court in Mantos Sarkar (supra). contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustai Court failed to notice the provision of Section 21 CPC 6 In view of the above, the impugned order dated sustained and is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted to the learned Motor adjudication of the claim petition on merits, in accordance with law. FAO No.1783 of 2024 (O&M) the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Gurugram, therefore, clearly possessed the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the claim petition. Support in this regard can be drawn from the judgment of vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported as (2016) 3 SC that Section 166(2) is a beneficial provision intended to facilitate access to justice for victims of motor accidents and must receive a liberal interpretation. The Supreme Court further held that there would be no impediment in m claim petition before the Tribunal within whose territorial jurisdiction the Insurance Company carries on business, particularly when no prejudice is shown to have been caused on account of such choice of forum. The relevant observations ined in para 14 thereof is reproduced as under: "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 facilitating remedies for the victims of in such matters can hardly be appreciated. There is no bar to a ition 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 Mantos Sarkar (supra). contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustai Court failed to notice the provision of Section 21 CPC In view of the above, the impugned order dated sustained and is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remitted to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Gurugram for adjudication of the claim petition on merits, in accordance with law. bunal at Gurugram, therefore, clearly possessed the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the claim petition. Support in this regard can be drawn from the judgment of Malati Sardar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported as (2016) 3 SCC 43, wherein it was held that Section 166(2) is a beneficial provision intended to facilitate access to justice for victims of motor accidents and must receive a liberal interpretation. The Supreme Court further held that there would be no impediment in maintaining a claim petition before the Tribunal within whose territorial jurisdiction the Insurance Company carries on business, particularly when no prejudice is shown to have been caused on account of such choice of forum. The relevant observations ined in para 14 thereof is reproduced as under:- he provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. The provision for iction 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 place where the Insurance company, which is the ies 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 Mantos Sarkar (supra). contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court failed to notice the provision of Section 21 CPC.” In view of the above, the impugned order dated 07.02.2023 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed. The matter is Accident Claims Tribunal. Gurugram for adjudication of the claim petition on merits, in accordance with law. 3 bunal at Gurugram, therefore, clearly possessed the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the claim Malati Sardar , wherein it was held that Section 166(2) is a beneficial provision intended to facilitate access to justice for victims of motor accidents and must receive a liberal interpretation. The aintaining a claim petition before the Tribunal within whose territorial jurisdiction the Insurance Company carries on business, particularly when no prejudice is shown to have been caused on account of such choice of forum. The relevant observations he provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. The provision for the object of accidents. Hyper technical approach claim place where the Insurance company, which is the ies 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 Mantos Sarkar (supra). ned. The High cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed. The matter is Accident Claims Tribunal. Gurugram for MOHMED ATIK 2026.09.11 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO No.1783 of 2024 7. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal at Gurugram on 25.09.2026. 8. Considering the fact that the accident took place learned Tribunal is requested to expedite the proceedings and adjudicate upon the same finally within 03 months from the date of appearance of the parties. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand of. September 10, 202 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable FAO No.1783 of 2024 (O&M) Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal at Gurugram Considering the fact that the accident took place learned Tribunal is requested to expedite the proceedings and adjudicate upon the same finally within 03 months from the date of appearance of the parties. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand , 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal at Gurugram Considering the fact that the accident took place 10.05.2019, the learned Tribunal is requested to expedite the proceedings and adjudicate upon the same finally within 03 months from the date of appearance of the parties. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE 4 Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal at Gurugram , the learned Tribunal is requested to expedite the proceedings and adjudicate upon the disposed MOHMED ATIK 2026.09.11 17:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt