- (1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. 1. This appeal, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has been filed against the award dated 31- 05-2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Addl. District Judge (hereinafter referred as Tribunal'), Nainital, in M. A. C. P. No. 245/2004, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 4,20,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum to the claimants against the United India Insurance Company Ltd.-appellant.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the claimants-respondent nos. 1 to 3 had filed a claim petition before the Tri bunal, Nainital alleging therein that on 30-04-2004 the deceased-Hassan Khan took the truck to the village Hatua for loading the paddy husk and the truck was parked on the extreme roadside. The deceased was standing on the opposite side of the road. At about 11am, a Bus No. UP 26-8216 coming from side of Bithaura rashly and negligently dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained severe injuries on his person. The deceased- Hassan Khan was shifted to District Hospital, Pilibhit but he could not survive. An FIR of the said accident was lodged at police station Gajraula, District Pilibhit. It was further alleged in the claim petition that the deceased was doing the business of paddy and wheat chaff. He was aged about 26 years and was earning Rs. 6,ooo/- p. m. at the time of incident. Hence, the claim had been preferred by the dependents of the de ceased. An amount of Rs. 26,00,000/- had been claimed as compensation. The opposite parties filed their written statements and contested the case. The respondent No. 4- Arvind Kumar Gupta, who is the owner of the offending vehicle had denied the acci dent. He further stated that his bus No. UP 26-8216 has wrongly been impli cated in the case. His Bus was insured with the United India Insurance Com pany Ltd. , Branch Office Pilibhit and as such he was not liable to pay the com pensation. The liability, if any, was of the insurer. He had also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal, Nainital. The United India Insurance Company had also filed the written statement in which it had been alleged that the Tribunal, Nainital has got no territorial jurisdiction for disposal of this matter as neither the accident took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Nainital's Tribunal nor any party is liv ing or carrying on their business within its territorial jurisdiction. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues in the case and ultimately, the learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the Tribunal, Nainital has got terri torial jurisdiction to dispose of the mat ter because the Insurance Company has its branch office within the territorial ju risdiction of Nainitai Tribunal. It was fur ther held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Bus, due to which the deceased sustained the injuries on his person and died. It was further held that the driver of the Bus had a valid driving licence at the material time and the offending Bus had also a valid reg istration, permit and the fitness certificate at the relevant time. The learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 3000/- per month or say Rs. 36,000/- per annum. The learned Tri bunal, after deducting l/3rd income for personal expenses had fixed the depend ency of the deceased as Rs. 24,000/- per annum. The learned Tribunal had ap plied the multiplier of "17", the amount comes Rs. 4,08,000/ -. Apart this, Rs. 5000/- for the consortium and Rs. 5000/- for funeral expenses had been awarded to the claimants. Thus, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 4,20,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimants against the appellant- The United India Insurance Com. Ltd.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved by this, the In surance Company- appellant has pre ferred the present appeal. The main controversy involved in this appeal is that whether the Tribunal, Nainital was well within its jurisdiction to dispose of the claim petition of the claim ants or not. Learned counsel for the ap pellant- Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal, Nainital had no territo rial jurisdiction to entertain and hear the claim petition filed by the claimants in view of the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as Act' ). It was further contended that the accident took place in District Pilibhit, U. P and the claimants are resid ing at village Lalaurikhera, Tehsil and Dis trict Pilibhit, U. P. The claim petition shows that the owner of the offending Bus also belongs to the District Pilibhit, U. P. It is also admitted that at the time of accident the Bus No. UP26-8216 was insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. at Pilibhit Branch, U. P. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further contended that the learned Tribunal had erred in holding that the Tribunal, Nainital has got ter ritorial jurisdiction to dispose of the claim petition. Learned counsel for the respond ents (claimants) has supported the judg ment of the learned Tribunal, Nainital. It was further contended on behalf of the claimants that since the United India In surance Co. Ltd. has its branch office at Haldwani, hence the Tribunal, Nainital can entertain the claim petition. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though the Insurance Company had its branch office at Haldwani, but the vehi cle in question had not been insured through the branch office, Haldwani. The vehicle was insured with the branch office, Pilibhit, U. P and as such the contract of insurance was executed either at Chennai the headquarter of the United India Insur ance Company or at its branch office Pilibhit, U. P. The Tribunal, Nainital has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. It was further submitted on behalf of the appellant that Pilibhit is adjoining to the district of U. S. Nagar and the distance from Pilibhit to U. S. Nagar is nearer than the distance from Pilibhit to Nainital. Therefore, it cannot be held that the claimants had any convenience to file the claim petition after travelling from Pilibhit to Nainital. Section 166 (2) of the Act is quoted below : "every application under sub-sec tion (1) shall be made, at the op tion 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 ju risdiction 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 par ticulars as may be prescribed : Provided that where no claim 'for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the appli cation shall contain a separate state ment to that effect immediately be fore the signature of the applicant. ";