Virendra Kumar Verma And Another vs Pashupati Yadav Yadav And Others

1. Heard the counsel for the appellant and Sri Ajay Singh the counsel for the respondent no.3 Insurance Company.

2. The appeal has been preferred against an award dated 06.08.2011 whereby the claim petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

3. The facts, as pleaded were that the deceased was coming home on 26.05.2008 when he met with an accident at Sivan Bypass Road, Sivan Bihar, which resulted in his death. The claim petition was filed at Deoria, State of U.P., mainly on the ground that the claimants were working for gain at the time of filing of the Claim Petition at Deoria.

4. After considering the pleadings, as many as four issues were framed by the Tribunal, however, the contention of the respondent that the Tribunal lack territorial jurisdiction was accepted and the claim petition was dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

5. In the light of the said, the submission of the counsel for the appellant is that in terms of Section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is the option of the claimants to file the Claim Petition either within the jurisdiction of the Court where the accident occurred or where the claimants reside or carry out business. Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act is quoted herein below :

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.

6. The Tribunal, while dismissing the Claim Petition held that the claimants had failed to adduce evidence in support of his contention in the form of either the statement of the Pradhan where he was staying or otherwise. The said award is clearly not in terms of the mandate of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

7. The appellant had specifically pleaded that he was working for gain at Deoria, there was no controversion or any material by the Insurance Company against the said assertion. Thus, no material existed, not to accept the contention of the claimants that they were working for gain at Deoria. More so, the claimants were working as daily wagerers, who are required to move to various places in search of job.

8. In absence of any material by the respondents that the appellants were not working for gain at Deoria, the dismissal of the claim petition is wholly unjustified. The award dated 06.08.2011 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law treating the claim petition to be within jurisdiction. The Tribunal shall endevour to decide the Claim Petition expeditiously and in accordance with law.

9. The appeal stands allowed.

(Pankaj Bhatia,J.)

May 7, 2026

VNP/-