AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
COMMON ORDER :
Since common issue is involved in all these revision petitions, they are disposed of by this common order, at the stage of admission.
For the sake of convenience, C.R.P. No.2140 of 2026 is taken as lead case for disposal of these revision petitions.
Heard Ms. Esha Sarda, learned counsel, representing Mr. Y. Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.
The docket order dated 05.02.2026 in M.V.O.P. No.248 of 2023 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge, Warangal (trial Court), is challenged in this revision, as being erroneous and contrary to law.
The case of the petitioners is that M.V.O.P. No.248 of 2023 was filed before the trial Court claiming compensation for death of their father in an accident caused by the lorry bearing No.AP-39-U-0351 owned by respondent No.2 and driven by respondent No.1. The crime vehicle was insured by respondent No.2 with respondent No.3 vide Policy No.0163008248 00 00 valid from 20.02.2022 to 19.02.2023, which is subsisting as on date of accident.
It is stated that petitioners are dependents/legal heirs of the deceased and claiming compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees six lakhs fifty thousand only). At the time of filing of M.V.O.P., petitioners were residing in Warangal and the petition is maintainable under Sections 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short 'MV Act'). The regional office of respondent No.3 i.e., TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited is located at Mulugu X Road, Warangal District, which is city centre. Thus, impugned docket order dated 05.02.2026 returning the M.V.O.P. and directing to file before the Court having proper jurisdiction is liable to set aside.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the docket order dated 05.02.2026, the trial Court recorded that petitioners are residents of Guntur District; the place of accident is Cumbam, Prakasham District; respondent No.2 is the owner of crime vehicle and he is resident of Cuddapah which is in the State of Andhra Pradesh and do not come within the jurisdiction of the trial Court. Hence, the office was directed to return the petition and file same before the Court having proper jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd1, wherein, it was held that:
“10.The question for consideration thus is whether the Tribunal at Kolkata had the jurisdiction to decide the claim application under Section 166 of the Act when the accident took place outside Kolkata jurisdiction and the claimant also resided outside Kolkata jurisdiction, but the respondent being a juristic person carried on business at Kolkata. Further question is whether in the absence of failure of justice, the High Court could set aside the award of the Tribunal on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 11. In our view, the matter is fully covered by the decisions of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar2. It will be worthwhile to quote the statutory provision of Section 166(2) of the Act:
"166.Application for compensation. -(1)
(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:
Provided that where no claim for compensation under Section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant."
In Pramod Simha v. Suresh Singh Chauhan3, it was held as under:
"4.The provisions of the Act do not make it mandatory for the claimants to lodge an application for compensation under Section 166 thereof before the MACT having jurisdiction over the area where the accident occurred. On the contrary, sub-section (2) of Section 166 provides an option for the claimants to approach the MACT within the local limits of whose jurisdiction they (claimants) reside or carry on business or the defendant resides. The claimants having chosen the option to approach the MACT, Farrukhabad at Fatehgarh, U.P., a forum that law permits them to choose, no grievance can be raised by the petitioner. The contention is misconceived and, hence, stands overruled."
As discussed in the above judgments with a specific reference to Section 166(2) of MV Act, parties can file their claim at their place of residence. The jurisdiction of the Court of MACT has to decided as per Section 166(2) of the MV Act which is a special statute and not under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC). Thus, the impugned order is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court and liable to be set aside.
In view of the above, the civil revision petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned docket orders in M.V.O.P. Nos.248 of 2023, 129 of 2023, 249 of 2023, 254 of 2023 and 122 of 2023 all dated 05.02.2026. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these civil revision petitions stand closed.