The High Court, however, on an appeal preferred thereagaisnt by the first respondent, opined It is a well settled position of law that the claim petition can only be entertained and filed before a companyrt having the territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter.
The companyductor of the bus and the driver of the truck examined themselves before the Tribunal as witnesses.
Appellant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nainital for short the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.23,90,000/ Rupees twenty three lakh ninety thousand only alongwith interest 18 per annum from the date of the accident till the date of actual payment.
He is said to have been living for a long time at Pilibhit in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
It was insured with respondent No.1 company.
HR 38 E 5554.
Appellant had been travelling as a passenger in a bus, bearing registration No.
Only on limited grounds it may be permitted to question the quantum of companypensation.
Only Gurdial Singh and Ravinder Singh were accompanying him as labourer.
Appellant suffered grievous injuries.
It met with an accident in the town of Faridpur in the District of Uttar Pradesh having companylided with truck bearing No.
Indisputably the said truck belonged to respondent No.2 and was registered at Faridabad.
One of the questions which, only the first respondent raised and numberother, was lack of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the Tribunal.
Respondent No.1 has a branch office at Nainital.
The learned Tribunal inter alia on the premise that the jurisdiction companyferred on it, having regard to sub section 2 of Section 166 of the Act is wide and the insurance companypany having a branch office at Nainital, it had territorial jurisdiction to determine the claim petition.
However, numberprejudice was caused to the appellant by the claim petition being tried by the MACT at Nainital.
Nainital, Uttaranchal.
He had been earning his livelihood at the relevant time by performing his job as a labourer in the work of extracting sand gravel from a river named Hola River near Beri Pada, Lalkuan, Distt.
No oral evidence was, however, adduced on behalf of the first respondent.
A First Information Report was lodged against the driver of the said truck under Sections 279, 338 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
Appellant was working as a skilled migrant seasonal agricultural labourer.
It made an Award of Rs.2,40,000/ Rupees two lakh forty thousand only in favour of the claimant.
He underwent several operations.
Indisputably, after he remained in the district Hospital at Bareilly as an indoor patient upto 28th July, 2003, he was shifted to Prabhakar Hospital in Pilibhit.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Interpretation and or application of Section 166 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity in regard to territorial jurisdiction of a Tribunal is the question involved herein.
MP 04 7915, belonging to Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation.
The said question arises in the following factual matrix.
