-1- 2025:CGHC:49967 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment Reserved on 18.08.2025 Judgment Delivered on 07.10.2025 MAC No. 1885 of 2019 1 - Smt. Suberat B. Khan W/o Gani Mohammad Aged About 40 Years 2 - Saira Bano D/o Gani Mohammad, Aged About 24 Years 3 - Raj Mohammad S/o Gani Mohammad Aged About 18 Years 4 - Taj Mohammad S/o Gani Mohammad, Aged About 16 Years 5 - Niyaj Mohammad S/o Gani Mohammad Aged About 12 Years 6 - Sajida B. D/o Gani Mohammad Aged About 10 Years 7 - Habib Mohammad S/o Jumman Mohammad, Aged About 70 Years 8 - Khakhra B W/o Habib Mohammad, Aged About 65 Years Minor appellants No. 4 to 6, natural Guardian Mother Smt. Suberat B. Khan W/o Gani Mohammad All are R/o Village Masjid Mohalla Pali, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh at Present R/o. Pragati Nagar, Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh................Claimants ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Yogesh Agrawal S/o Chhedi Lal Agrawal, Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Naila, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle).............Non-Applicant Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.10.08 11:23:33 +0530 -2- 2 - Naresh Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Chandrabhan Agrawal, R/o. Gajanand Medical Store, Ward No. 5, Main Road, Naila, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle)............Non- Applicant 3 - New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, T.P. Nagar Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle).............Non- Applicant, ... Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : None appears though served For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge CAV Judgment 1. Appellants/claimants have filed this appeal challenging award dated 28.06.2019 passed in MACT Case No.101 of 2016 by learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District- Korba whereby Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground of jurisdiction. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) pleading therein that on the date of accident i.e. 14.04.2016, Gani Mohammad was travelling on motorcycle as pillion along with his friend Rahmat Khan and going to Pali. At about 9:00 am when they reached near Gopal Flour Mil, Rahmat Khan -3- stopped his motorcycle, Gani Mohammand while crossing the road to purchase households goods, he was dashed on road by non-applicant No.1, driving his motorcycle No. CG 11 MB 6905 rashly and negligently and caused an accident. Gani Mohammad suffered grievance injuries over his person. He was taken to hospital, however, during course of treatment he succumbed to injuries. On the date of accident, deceased Gani Mohammand was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by working as Mason. 3. Non-applicants No.1 and 2 submitted reply to claim application denying the facts pleaded therein. It was further pleaded that non-applicant No.1 driver of offending vehicle bearing No. CG 11 MB 6905 was possessing valid and effective driving licence, it was owned by non- applicant No.2 and insured by non-applicant No.3/ Insurance Company. Non-applicant No.3 being insurer is liable to pay compensation. 4. Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company submitted reply pleading that facts pleaded in claim application is concocted. At the time of accident, Rahmat Khan drove his motorcycle rashly and negligently on which deceased was also travellinng and suddenly took a turn to cross road and dashed with offending motorcycle. Accident was result of rash and negligent driving by Rahmat Khan. Non-applicant No.1 was not possessed with valid and effective driving licence and as such there was breach of policy conditions. 5. Learned Claims Tribunal formulated as many as five issues for -4- consideration and upon appreciation of evidence brought on record by respective parties dismissed claim application on the ground that Claims Tribunal at Katghora is not having jurisdiction to entertain claim application . 6. Learned counsel for appellants/claimants would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has not taken into consideration the provision of sub- Section (2) of Section 166 of Act of 1988 in appropriate manner. Above provision under Act of 1988 specifically provides that filing of claim application is on the option of claimant, it can be filed either at the place where claimants are residing or doing their business. Claimants in claim application have specifically shown address of Pragati Nagar, Darri, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba as present address. Claimant No.1 appeared as witness before Claims Tribunal as AW1 wherein also she made statement that for some time they resided at Pragati Nagar Darri. Claims Tribunal without appreciating evidence in its entirely has dismissed the application. Said finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal is erroneous . 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 8. Perusal of the cause title of claim application filed under Section 166 of the Act fo 1988 would show that claimants are eight in number, they have shown their permanent address as Masjid Mohalla Pali, District- Janjgir Champa. Present address is also mentioned as Pragati Nagar, Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District- Korba. In evidence of claimant No.1 she -5- categorically made statement that claimants have resided for some time at Pragati Nagar, Darri and have denied suggestion given by counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company that they never resided at Pragati Nagar, Darri. This evidence of AW1 widow of deceased is not controverted by any other evidence or in her cross- examination when this witness was extensively cross-examined by counsel for non-applicants. Non-applicants i.e. driver, owner or insurer did not enter into witness box. In order sheet dated 24.06.2019, Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that non-applicants do not want to give any evidence and accordingly their right to lead evidence was closed. 9. Application was filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 which also provides for making an application before Claims Tribunal. Sub-section (2) of Section 166 is relevant, hence, it is extracted below for ready reference: “166. Application of 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 x x x x x x [(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; -6- [***]] 10. From bare perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 166 of the Act of 1988 would show that application under Section 166 (1) is to be made, at the option of claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which accident occurred or to Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction claimant resides or carries on business. From evidence available on record it is apparent that after death of deceased, claimants resided for some time at Pragati Nagar Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District- Korba. 11. Provisions under the Act of 1988 are benevolent and it is to be construed accordingly, keeping in mind facts of case in particular claimant or the legal representatives of deceased who suffered injuries or lost his/her life. 12.In case of Mantoo Sarkar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. (2009) 2 SCC 244, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the appeal wherein accident occurred with the bus registered in Madhya Pradesh, place of accident is of Faridpur, Uttar Pradesh, claimants therein took treatment at Bareilly and Pilibhit in Uttar Pradesh, however, claim application under Section 166 seeking compensation was filed at Nainital (Uttarakhand), held 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 -7- 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.” 13.In above referred case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has further considered that when once Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding on other issues also and if the award passed by Claims Tribunal is to be complied with then some procedure is to be followed and same evidence would have to be rendered once again and observed thus: “23. We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the appellant herein was a labourer. The justness or otherwise of the amount of compensation has not been disputed before us. If the High Court's judgment is to be complied with, the appellant would again have to initiate another proceeding either at Bareilly or Gurgaon or at Delhi or at Jabalpur. The same evidence would have to be rendered once again. 24. The question of fact which was required to be determined in the proceeding before the Tribunal, namely, whether the driver of the truck or the driver of the bus had been driving their respective vehicles rashly and negligently would have to be determined afresh. The factual finding recorded in this case is that the driver of the truck was driving the truck rashly and negligently.” 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the case as discussed in para -8- 20, 23, 24 of judgment in Mantoo Sarkar (supra) had set aside the order of High Court wherein it was held that Claims Tribunal at Nainital (U.K.) was not having territorial jurisdiction. 15.In case of Balveer Batra Vs. New India Assurance Company and Anr. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 4072), Hon’ble Supreme Court relying upon the decision in case of Mantoo Sarkar (supra), Malti Sardar Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 43, held as under: “29. We have already referred to the provision under Order XIV, Rule 2, CPC, observed and held while in certain circumstances it would be inevitable to pronounce judgment/award on all issues as mandated thereunder. We are not oblivious of the provision under Section 169 of the M.V. Act. In this regard, it is apt to refer to paragraph 15 of the decision in Mantoo Sarkar's case (supra) where this Court held as under:- “15. No doubt the Tribunal must exercise jurisdiction having regard to the ingredients laid down under subsection (2) of Section 166 of the Act. We are not unmindful of the fact that in terms of Section 169 of the Act, the Tribunal, subject to any rules, may follow a summary procedure and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure under the Act have a limited application but in terms of the rules “save and except” any specific provision made in that behalf, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply. Even otherwise the principles laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure may be held to be applicable in a case of this nature.” 30. Since, there is no specific provision to deal with a situation akin to the situation in the case on hand, the said observation in Mantoo Sarkar's case (supra) would apply to the case on hand with all its force.” -9- 16.In case of Balveer Batra (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has further considered that delay in deciding the claim case on merits would defeat the very purpose of benevolent legislation provided for grant of compensation under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 and taken notice of period which took for deciding the case and appeal before High Court of about 10 years in total. 17.In case at hand, application seeking compensation was filed on 21.07.2016 which was decided on 28.06.2019 nearly after 3 years, appeal before this Court was filed on 04.10.2019 and thereafter about 5 and ½ years have already elapsed. 18. Evidence of AW1 that they resided for 2 months within the territorial jurisdiction of Katghora Claims Tribunal, has not been controverted by appropriate evidence. There is no material to suggest that claimants at any point of time have ever resided at Katghora, no prejudice will be caused to non-applicants- driver, owner and insurer of offending vehicle. In the aforementioned facts of case, considering entirety of facts and circumstances of case, evidence available on record in light of above referred decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that learned Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim application on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, and hence it is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. 19.As learned Claims Tribunal has formulated five issues for consideration, initiated proceeding, recorded evidence and therefore case is remitted -10- back to learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District – Korba with a direction to compute the compensation to be awarded to claimants, in accordance with law after hearing all the parties. It is expected from the Claims Tribunal to dispose off the case within an outer limit of four months from the first date of hearing fixed before it. 20.Parties are directed to appear before Claims Tribunal on 12.11.2025. 21.Registry is directed to send back the record of Claim Case along with judgment of this Court forthwith for proper action and compliance. 22.Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen