Provendu Narayan Sinha, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the order No. 27 dated 2nd December, 2000 passed by the learned M.A.C. Tribunal, 24-Parganas (South), Alipore (Court of 1st Additional District Judge at Alipore) in M.A.C. Case No. 20 of 1999 by which the learned Tribunal returned the claim petition dated 23.12.1998 to the filing lawyer and directed presentation of the same before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Midnapore. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
(2.) The appellant as petitioner filed an application on 23.12.1998 under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned District and Sessions Judge, South 24-Parganas at Alipore as the Tribunal and the said M.A.C. Case was transferred to the Court of 1 Additional District Judge at Alipore-cum-M.A.C. Tribunal for disposal. The appellant petitioner filed the application claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- for the death of her son Tuhin Subhra Giri due to motor vehicle accident on 17.08.1998 by Vehicle No. WGB-4214 (oil tanker). O.P. respondents 1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle which caused the accident at the relevant lime. O.P. No. 2, National Insurance Company Limited contested the case by filing written statement. The witnesses produced before the learned Tribunal on behalf of the appellant petitioner were cross examined. After closure of evidence learned Tribunal heard arguments from both sides and fixed 2.12.2000 for delivery of judgment. On 2.12.2000 learned Tribunal passed the impugned order returning the claim petition to the filing lawyer with direction to present the same before the M.A.C. Tribunal at Midnapore observing that the case ought to have been filed before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Midnapore considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and perusal of the evidence. The point for consideration in this appeal are (1) whether there is merit in the instant appeal against the impugned order dated 2.12.2000 and (2) whether the impugned order returning the claim application to the filing lawyer for presentation before the learned M.A.C Tribunal at Midnapore is an appealable order.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal erred in law by holding that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try the case. The learned Tribunal was in error by observing that the appellant petitioner resides at Ramnagar in the District of Midnapore and is not a permanent resident of J-345, Paharpur Road, Calcutta-700 024 in the residence of her daughter and son-in-law. Learned Tribunal should have held that it had jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act which emphasises that the application for compensation can be made to the claim Tribunal within local limit of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides. Even if the applicant resides temporarily, in the residence of her daughter and son-in-law it will confer territorial jurisdiction on the learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal was in error by marking xerox copy of the Ration Card as exhibit without tendering of the original before the Tribunal. He further contended that the impugned order is an appealable order in view of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.;