IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4586 of 2026 Banita Mohapatra …. Petitioner Ms. Adyasa Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- Prof. Ravi Ahuja & others …. Opp. Parties CORAM: JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Order No. ORDER 27.04.2026 (Hybrid Mode) 05. 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner is heard at some length. She reiterates her submissions as noted in the earlier orders. 2. The sum and substance of the submissions made is that the petitioner is wife of the deceased, victim of a road accident that resulted in unfortunate demise of her husband-Sri Papu Ranjan Mohapatra on 05.09.2023 at about 5 AM at Barpali in the district of Bargarh within the jurisdiction of Barpali police station. The occurrence corresponds to Barpali P.S. Case No.297 of 2023 registered as G.R. Case No.284 of 2023. Page 2 of 4 3. It is submitted after death of the husband of the petitioner, she is having a strained relationship with her in-laws ‘she has been driven out from her matrimonial home’ and stays at Puri. 4. As has been observed and reflected in order dated 24.02.2026, it is not disputed that the accident happened under Barpali Police Station, the cause of action, all the evidence and witnesses are within the territorial jurisdiction of the MACT at Bargarh. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner was also apprised that by transferring to Puri which is at about 399 KMs. on the Highway no benefit would accrue to the petitioner, rather such transfer would affect adjudication as before the MACT, in the trial seeking compensation, evidence needs to be adduced and the materials are to be produced. 5. In support of her submission, learned counsel relies on sub-section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said sub-section is reproduced herein: “166. Application for compensation.- (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:” In considered opinion of this Court, since all the three claimants i.e. the petitioner, her mother-in-law and father-in-law are before the MACT, Bargarh, Section-166 cannot be selectively applied to exclude the choice of place of litigation of the father and mother of the deceased. 6. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is apprehensive about her wellbeing and safety and she cannot effectively appear at Bargarh. In response to the said submission, learned counsel was asked whether such facts have been brought to the notice of the learned MACT by filing proper application and if so, then if any order has been passed by the learned MACT. In response, upon instruction, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that she has no such instruction whether the learned MACT was apprised of any such threat and difficulties in appearance. 7. Now, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be allowed to avail the ICT facility. It is further ordered that the petitioner, if so advised, shall make application before the said Tribunal for extending the facility of ICT such as virtual hearing, deposition etc. Upon making such application, learned Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, if the facility is available. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of. Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned 1st MACT, Bargarh to be kept in the records of MAC No.100 of 2023. (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge Radha