1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1044 of 2024 1 - Akansha Pandey W/o Naivedhya Aged About 26 Years By Caste Brahman, At Present R/o Ward No. 16, Badan Singh Mohalla, Manendragarh, Thana And Tahsil Manendragarh, Distt. Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Laxman Singh S/o Late Hazari Singh Aged About 31 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village Lamro, Thana Kotwali, Distt. Shahdol M.P. 2 - Samyak Jain S/o Motilal Jain Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 8 Pandav Nagar, Shahdol Thana Kotwali, Distt. Shahdol M.P. 3 - Aco General Insurance Limited Through Its Branch Manager, Unit No. 301, 3rd Floor, F-Wing, Lotus Corporate Park, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400063 ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Ms. Bhavika Kotecha, Advocate. For respondent No.3 : Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.11 .2025 1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') challenging the NIRMALA RAO 2 impugned order dated 04.05.2024, passed in Claim Case No.23 of 2024, whereby the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Manendragarh, District - Koriya (C.G.) (for short 'the Claims Tribunal") dismissed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 for grant of compensation against the injury suffered in a road accident on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant/claimant filed an application seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pleading therein that the appellant alongwith her husband and daughter were going to Village Khairhani, Jothpur, when they met with an accident involving the offending vehicle within territorial limits of Police Station Sohagpur, District Sahdol (M.P.). The accident was reported to the concerned police station, and a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, District Shahdol (M.P.). The claimant and her family members suffered serious injuries and due to the serious injuries sustained by the appellant, she had a miscarriage at three months of pregnancy. As proper medical care was not available at her place of residence, therefore, she shifted Manendragarh near her parental house and thereafter filed an application before the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Manendragarh, District-Koriya (C.G.) seeking compensation. Learned Claims Tribunal after receiving the claim case, fixed the matter for hearing on 04.05.2024 on the question of jurisdiction. The claim application was dismissed by the learned Claims Tribunal in want of territorial jurisdiction, as the claimant was a permanent resident of District Shahdol and the accident had also occurred within that District. 3 3. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal fell into error in misreading the provisions under Section 166 (2) of the Act, 1988. She would contend that the claimant in the claim application has pleaded correct facts, that the place of accident is within Shahdol District (MP) and her permanent residence was also in Shahdol. She had specifically stated the reason for residing at Manendragarh was to get proper care and treatment. She would submit that the claimant on the date of filing of the claim application, residing at Manendragarh and in view of the provisions under Section 166 (2) of the Act. 1988, the Claims Tribunal at Manendragarh had the jurisdiction to entertain the claim. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that learned Claims Tribunal taking note of the provisions under Section 166 (2) of the Act. 1988 and further considering that place of accident was District Shahdol (M.P.) and she is permanent resident of District Shahdol State of Madhya Pradesh, rightly dismissed the application reserving liberty in her favour to file claim case before the Competent Claims Tribunal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 6. It is not in dispute that the accident took place within the territory of Police Station Sohagpur, District Shahdol (M.P.). The appellant is resident of District Shahdol (M.P.), however, she clearly pleaded in the claim application that at the relevant period, she was residing in Manendragarh as in Shahdol there was no person to take her care. 4 7. Provisions under Section 166 (2) of the Act, 1988 is extracted below for ready reference :- "166. Application for compensation.. (1) xxx xx [(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 contain such particulars as may be prescribed:" 8. A perusal of the aforementioned provision would show that every application under Sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act of 1988 shall be made "at the option of the claimant" and the claimant may file the application before the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction she resides. In the impugned order, learned Claims Tribunal observed that the accident took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Shahdol (M.P.), that the appellant is a permanent resident of District Shahdol and that she failed to submit the documents of her residence at Manendragarh. It was further observed that the temporary resident for the purpose of medical treatment cannot be considered as a place of residence for deciding the question of jurisdiction of the Court. 9. The 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, observed in 4, 5 & 12 as under :- "4. The appellant was working as a skilled migrant seasonal agricultural labourer. He had been earning his livelihood at the relevant time 5 by performing his job as a labourer in the work of extracting sand gravel from a river named "Gola River" near Beri Padav, Lalkuan, District Nainital, Uttaranchal. He is said to have been living for a long time at Pilibhit in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Indisputably, after he remained in District Hospital at Bareilly as an indoor patient up to 28-7-2003, he was shifted to Prabhakar Hospital in Pilibhit. He underwent several operations. 5. The appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nainital (for short "the Tribunal") claiming a sum of Rs 23,90,000 (Rupees twenty-three lakhs ninety thousand only) along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of actual payment. 12. A claimant has a wide option. Residence of the claimant also determines jurisdiction of the Tribunal. What would be a residence of a person would, however, depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case.". Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Malati Sardar Vs. Nationa Insurance Company Limited & Ors., reported in (2016) 3 SCC 43 reiterating the observation made in case of Mantoo Sarkar (supra) has held as under :- 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Malati Sardar Vs. Nationa Insurance Company Limited & Ors., reported in (2016) 3 SCC 43 reiterating the observation made in case of Mantoo Sarkar (supra) has held 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…………..” 11. From the aforementioned facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it appears that a claimant can file a claim application at the place where he or she is residing. In case at hand, at 6 the relevant time claimant was residing at Manendragarh on account of complications arising from the motor accident injuries. 12. In the aforementioned facts of the case and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim application at the preliminary stage of admission without issuing notice to the opposite side. Therefore, the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 is unsustainable and is accordingly set-aside. The case is remitted back to the learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) to decide the claim case afresh after issuing notice, framing issues, and recording evidence of the parties. The parties to the appeal are directed to appear before the learned Claims Tribunal on 28.10.2025. 13. Accordingly, the present appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi