S.N.AGGARWAL, J. - (1.) SUBHASH Chand-petitioner filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for claiming compensation with regard to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident, which allegedly took place on 9.4.2001 at about 7.00/8.00 A.M. in the area of Police Station Karanvas, District Rajgarh (M.P.). It was pleaded that the petitioner was under the employment of Usman Khan resident of Ferozepur Jhirka District Gurgaon. Therefore The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon had the jurisdiction. It was objected to by the respondents. The learned trial Court framed the issues, but reached the conclusion under issue No. 3-A that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, gurgaon did not have the jurisdiction, as neither the accident took place within the Gurgaon area, nor the petitioner was residing in the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon. Hence, the present petition.
(2.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that although the petitioner was resident of village Baghore, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar, but he was carrying on his business in the employment of Usman Khan son of Kalu Khan, resident of Ferozepur Jhirka, District Gurgaon. Therefore, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon had the jurisdiction to try the claim petition. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court reported as Smt. Sharda Devi and others v. Suresh Kumar and others, 2004(2) Criminal Court Judgments 814. In this judgment provisions of Section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act were interpreted and it was held as under :- "It has been held in the aforementioned judgment that a claim petition could be filed before a Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides. The word 'Resides' has been interpreted to mean the residence of the claimant at the time of presentation of the petition. Moreover. in the Act 'resides' could mean permanent residence. It has been held in Nikki Devi's case' (supra) that if a narrow meaning as given by the learned Tribunal below is upheld, it will result in defeating the purpose of substitution of Section 166 (2) from as it originally existed in the year 1994. In view of this, findings on issue No. 4 recorded by the learned Tribunal below, are not sustainable and those deserve to be set aside. Ordered accordingly." No doubt, the petitioner is permanent resident of District Alwar, but he had specifically pleaded that he was in employment of Usman Khan resident of Ferozepur Jhirka, District Gurgaon. Therefore, the findings of the learned trial Court under issue No. 3-A are set aside and it is held that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon has the jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the claim petition.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , this petition is accepted. The impugned order dated 13.1.2005 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, for deciding the same afresh on merits. The parties are directed to appear in the learned trial Court on 8.5.2007. Order accordingly.;