DIPANKAR DATTA,J. - (1.) The claimant in M.A.C. Case No. 211 of 2014, arising out of an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is the appellant before us in this appeal under section 173 thereof. He has called in question the award dated August 29, 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal presided over by the Additional District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore, District 24 Parganas (South) whereby the claim case was dismissed by the tribunal on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
(2.) Since the appeal involves short questions of law, as argued by Mr. Mondal, learned advocate for the appellant, we had heard him and Ms. Santra, learned advocate for the respondent no. 1/insurer on April 18, 2017 itself after condoning the delay in presentation of the appeal without insisting on preparation of paper books and we propose to dispose of this appeal by this judgment and order.
(3.) It appears that the claimant while riding a bicycle was dashed by a car bearing registration no. WB-30C/8070 (hereafter the offending vehicle) which, allegedly, was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, as a result whereof he suffered multiple injuries. Despite the accident having occurred within the territorial limits of Tamluk Police Station and the insurance policy having been bought by the owner of the offending vehicle, respondent no. 2, from the Tamluk branch office of the respondent no. 1/insurer, the claimant had approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Alipore in the District of South 24-Parganas. The tribunal held that the mere fact of the respondent no. 1/insurer having a branch office at Gariahat Road, Calcutta - 700019 would not clothe it with the jurisdiction to grant relief to the appellant. The tribunal was also of the view that the claim application ought to have been presented either before the tribunal exercising jurisdiction over the territorial limits of Tamluk Police Station or before the tribunal within whose jurisdictional limits the registered/head office of the respondent no. 1/insurer was situated. Although the tribunal proceeded to determine the compensation that could be awarded to the appellant, it is on the ground of territorial jurisdiction that his claim was spurned.;