1 2025:CGHC:29600 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 800 of 2019 Dinesh Bharti S/o Late Chhannu Bharti Aged About 40 Years At Present Resident Of Kasaridih, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. ---(Claimant). --- Appellant versus 1 - Puhupram Sahu S/o Suhagram Sahu Aged About 39 Years Occupation - Vehicle Driver, Resident of Ward No. 39, Durga Chowk, Lakholi, Police Station Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. --(Driver Of Tractor No. C.G. -11-A-8401), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Siyaram Sahu S/o Late Dilram Sahu R/o Darri, Post - Dhaneli, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. ---(Owner Of Tractor No. C.G. -11-A-8401), 3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon, Branch Office Akashganga Supela, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---(Insurer Of Tractor No. C.G. -11-A-8401) --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Bennoon, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.N. Nandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 01/07/2025 1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) against the impugned order dated 12.12.2018, passed in Claim Case No.176/2016, whereby the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.16 11:29:28 +0530 2 has dismissed the claim application on the ground that the Claims Tribunal is not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 166 of the Act,1988. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that a claim application U/s. 166 of the Act, 1988 seeking compensation was filed by the claimant/appellant as against the injury suffered by him in the road accident. It was pleaded that on 23.11.2014 at 5:45 PM, appellant/injured was traveling on my motorcycle, bearing registration number CG 08 NA 6615, from village Tilai to his native village, Padumtara. When he reached near village Padumtara culvert, driver of a tractor bearing registration No. CG 11 A/8401 while driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner dashed him and caused accident. As a result of the accident, he suffered fractures in his tibia and fibula bones near the knee of right leg, as well as fractures to the pubic bones near right hip joint. He also suffered injuries in his chest and other parts of body. 3. The Learned Claims Tribunal, while adjudicating the matter, dismissed the claim application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the ground that the Claims Tribunal is not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant/claimant on the date of fling of claim application was residing within territorial jurisdiction of Claims Tribunal at Durg accordingly, he has filed an application seeking compensation as against the injuries suffered by him in road accident, before the learned Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Durg. Learned 3 Claims Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the application recording a finding that Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg is not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim application as the claimant was resident of outside the territorial jurisdiction of Durg i.e. Rajnandgaon. He contended that earlier claimant was resident of village Padumtara, District Rajnandgaon, however, he was residing since long thereafter at Durg and being residing in the territorial jurisdiction of Durg has filed the application seeking compensation. The claims Tribunal appears to have taken the note of address mentioned in the criminal case, which itself will not be sufficient to dislodge the claimant from seeking relief under the provisions of the the Act, 1988 of compensation against motor accidental injuries suffered by him. 5. Learned counsel for the respective respondents supports the impugned order, however, they jointly submitted that there is no bar in filing of the claim application at the place of resident even if the accident is occurred at different place. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 7. The address mentioned in the claim application of claimant is Kasaridih, District – Durg. In the affidavit, the address is shown to be resident of District Durg. In the records of the claim case, claimant has also enclosed the copy of the document of the criminal case in which in front of name of applicant address is shown as village – Padumtara, Police Station – Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon and the accident 4 occurred when applicant was travelling to village Padumtara, District Rajnandgaon. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2009) 2 SCC 244 while considering the issue of territorial jurisdiction of tribunal considering the application filed under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation has observed in para-20, which reads as under :- “20. A distinction, however, must be made between a jurisdiction with regard to the subject-matter of the suit and that of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. Whereas in the case falling within the former category the judgment would be a nullity, in the latter it would not be. It is not a case where the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in relation to the subject-matter of claim. As a matter of fact the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. If the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, in our opinion, the court should not have, in the absence of any finding of sufferance of any prejudice on the part of the first respondent, entertained the appeal. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Malati Sardar Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors., reported in (2016) 3 SCC 43 reiterating the observation made in case of Mantoo Sarkar (supra) has observed in para -16, which 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. Hypertechnical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated. There is no bar to a claim petition being filed 5 at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting party 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 [Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 244 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 482 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 738] , contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court failed to notice the provision of Section 21 CPC.” 10. Considering the aforementioned decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, facts and circumstances of the case and and the address of the claimant/appellant in the claim application has been shown to be resident of District Durg in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim application on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal is not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim application filed by the appellant/claimant taking note of the address as mentioned in the criminal case only. 11. For the forgoing discussions, the impugned order dated 12.12.2018 is set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Durg for deciding the claim case on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 18.08.2025. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram