Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 7.7.2011, which has dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioners -claimants holding that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. Shri M.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the judgement of this Court in Mangi Lal & Anr. vs. Rajendra Singh & Anr., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1774/2010 dated 2.11.2011 and argued that the controversy raised, as far as question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgement. It was argued that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that since the accident had taken place at Jamsar, District Bikaner, the claim petition would also be maintainable only before MACT, Bikaner. Learned counsel submitted that the non -claimant -RSRTC has been impleaded as party respondent through its Managing Director at Parivahan Marg, Jaipur as owner of the bus and the registration of the bus is also at Jaipur. The legislature has taken a liberal approach in providing in Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 that the claim petition could be filed before the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. Since the headquarters of the RSRTC is not only at Jaipur, the defendant -RSRTC through its Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur has been impleaded as party -non -claimant before the Tribunal, the Tribunal could not have held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction. The reliance on the judgement of Supreme Court in M/s. Patel Roadways, Bombay vs. Prasad Trading Co., : AIR 1992 SC 1514 was wrongly placed by the learned Tribunal.
(2.) SHRI Virendra Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that the claim petition would not be maintainable before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur because the RSRTC should have been impleaded as party through Depot Manager at Bikaner Depot and not through Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. It is also argued that since the Tribunal has by order dated 7.7.2011, dismissed the claim petition with liberty to the claimants to file same before the Court having territorial jurisdiction, the respondent -RSRTC ought not be required to pay interest for the earlier period and should be required to pay interest only from the period the petitioner would now file fresh claim petition before the Tribunal. This Court in Mangi Lal & Anr. vs. Rajendra Singh & Anr., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1774/2010 dated 2.11.2011 dealing with the similar objection as to the territorial jurisdiction in a case where RSRTC was impleaded as party through its Chairman and where a similar order was passed by the Tribunal relying on the same judgement of Supreme in M/s. Patel Roadways Bombay, supra held as under: On hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned award, I find that the judgement of Supreme Court in M/s. Patel Roadways Ltd., supra arose out of suit for damages filed against the Corporation. The Supreme Court in that case was called upon to interpret Section 20 of CPC especially Explanation thereto which provided that a Corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office at such place. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgement revisited its earlier decisions on interpretation of aforesaid provisions and held that so long as the subordinate office of the Corporation is situated at a place other than headquarters, the suit would be maintainable at such place if the cause of action has arisen there. In the present case, possibly those provisions may not be applicable because a specific provision in a separate enactment, which is the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governs the field i.e. Section 166(2) according to which the claim petition could be filed before the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. RSRTC in the present case was impleaded as non -claimant through its Chairman Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur and that was sufficient compliance of the provisions of the Act.
(3.) THE question of interest was considered by this Court in the case of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Raju @ Muzahir Hussain & Ors., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 7093/2011 dated 23.5.2012 and the similar argument was rejected by holding thus: I am not persuaded to uphold the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant because even the Tribunal has taken certain time in finally deciding the matter. Even if the claimants failed to produce the documents for some time, the claimants cannot be deprived of the interest of the intervening period because quantification of the compensation has been made by the Tribunal when the award was passed. If and when quantification of compensation is made by passing the final award, insurance company would be required to pay compensation. If the compensation has been paid with certain delay, that would still mean that claimants were entitled to receive such compensation much earlier, atleast on the date of filing claim petition and for all this time, money was retained by the insurance company and was otherwise not paid to the claimants. Delay in quantification of compensation may have been caused due to the procedure in the working of the Tribunal, part of which may also be attributable to the claimants in approaching the Tribunal and then in producing evidence and documents in time but all those steps are part of the procedure for which the claimants cannot be held responsible. The insurance companies in the matters like present one, should refrain from approaching this Court by filing frivolous appeals challenging award of compensation of such small amount. In view of above, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 7.7.2011 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the claim petition on merits after providing opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence.;