Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J. - (1.) In this revisional application the petitioner, being the applicant in the Motor Accident Claim Case M.A.C.C. No. 251 of 2011, has challenged the Order No. 25 dated April 09, 2015 passed by the learned 3rd Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta. By the impugned order, the learned Court below returned the claim petition of the petitioner to his advocate for presentation of the same before the appropriate forum, on the ground that it lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim.
(2.) Undisputedly, the petitioner is the resident of Kobala (Purba), Kutirpara, Purbasthali, Burdwan and while working as a hotel boy at Bighati, P.S. Bhadreswar, District -Hooghly, he was hit by a speeding vehicle. The petitioner suffered severe physical injury and became permanently disabled. The said vehicle was under the insurance cover of the opposite party No. 1 insurance company issued from its office at Chandannagore, Hooghly and the residential address of the owner of the offending vehicle is at Balagarh, Hooghly. The petitioner filed an application for compensation under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), before the learned Court below, claiming compensation of Rs. 2,60,000/ - against the opposite party No. 1 insurance company and the opposite party No. 2 the owner of the vehicle. According to the petitioner, summons of the said claim case was served upon the opposite parties, but none of them appeared before the learned Court below and the said case was heard ex parte. The petitioner filed his examination -in -chief on affidavit and disclosed and proved the relevant documents. Although, none of the opposite parties contested the said claim case, by the impugned order the learned Court below held that inasmuch as the accident took place in the District of Hooghly, the offending vehicle was under the insurance cover of the opposite party No. 1 insurance company issued from its office at Chandannagore, Hooghly and the residential address of the owner of the offending vehicle is also at Balagarh, District - Hooghly, the City Civil Court at Calcutta lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said claim case under sub -Section (2) of Sec. 166 of the Act.
(3.) Although, none of the opposite parties contested the claim case filed by the petitioner before the learned Court below but this Court directed the petitioner to serve a copy of this application on the opposite parties. The petitioner served a copy of this application on the opposite party No. 1 insurance company and Mr. Rajesh Singh appeared for the opposite party No. 1. This Court even passed an interim order on January 25, 2016 directing stay of operation of the impugned order till February 20, 2016.;