United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Om Prakash and Another

S.P. Srivastava, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Insurer/appellant.

The appellant has filed the. present appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act feeling aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, determining an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- as just compensation to which the dependants of the deceased were found entitled on account of his untimely death in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle, a Bus bearing registration No. UP 13B/8982 which has been insured by the present appellant covering the risk.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on a careful consideration of the evidence and materials brought on record had come to the conclusion that the grievous injuries were caused to the claimant in the accident. His big toe of the left leg had been completely destroyed and the two small toes of the left leg adjoining the big toe were amputated. An iron rod had been inserted in the left leg which had been broken in the accident; The extent of permanent disability was found to be 20%. The injured was found to be aged about 54 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal on a careful consideration of the income, etc. of the deceased at the time of accident awarded an amount of compensation of Rs. 1,70,000/- which included the cost of medicines and other expenditures made by the appellant.

The only submission urged and pressed by the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal is that impugned judgment and award was without jurisdiction as taking into consideration the implications arising u/s 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claim petition filed by the injured could not be entertained by the Motor Accident Tribunal situated at Meerut.

In this connection it is urged that the accident had taken place in the District Bulandshahr and at the time of accident the injured was posted as traffic police at Bulandshahr. Since at that time of accident the injured was posted at Bulandshahr and he had been residing at Bulandshahr. It is urged that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bulandshahr had only the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.

We have considered the submission.

The relevant part of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act is as under:

(1) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

(2) Every application under Sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides of carries on business of within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:

Provided that where no claim for compensation u/s 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.

(3) xxx xxx xxx xxx

(4) xxx xxx xxx xxx

A perusal of Section 166(2) of the Act indicates that every application under Sub-section (1) is required to be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or to 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.

The learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that taking into consideration the implications arising under the expression "resides" as used in Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal which has given the impugned award fastening the pecuniary liability on the Insurer-appellant was clearly incompetent as the said Tribunal did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.

We have given our anxious consideration to the above submission.

As noticed by the Tribunal the injured claimant examined as P.W. 1 Om Prakash had stated that on 23.6.1999 that is the date of accident he had been posted in District-Bulandshahr as a Traffic Police. From 23.6.1999 to 2.7.1999 he remained confined in Meerut Medical College. Thereafter he got shifted in Sharma Nursing Home. The claim petition had been filed in District Meerut. Though at the time of accident the injured was in District Bulandshahr yet there is no dispute that at the time of filling the claim petition, the claimant was residing at Meerut. The Tribunal had found that the injured claimant was transferred to Meerut and was performing his duties there. He had believed the statement of the injured Om Prakash that he used to reside along with his family in Anoopnagar, Fazalpur, Meerut from much before 23.6.1999. Since January, 1999 he was residing along with his family in a rented house in Anoopnagar, Fazalpur, Meerut and he used to come there from Bulandshahr after a week or ten days. Subsequent to the accident he got himself transferred to Meerut and was residing along with his family in the rented house in Meerut.

The Tribunal taking into consideration the fact that the injured was a permanent resident of District - Meerut and the other facts noticed hereinabove had come to the conclusion that the claim petition was maintainable and entertainable at Meerut.

It may be observed that the expression "resides" as used in Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act has to be given a liberal interpretation taking into consideration the beneficial nature of the enactment protecting the interest of the injured person or the dependent of III party victims of an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle or damage to any property or both.

The expression "resides" as used in Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act signifies dwelling in a place for a continuous and considerable period in contradistinction to a temporary residence. It may be observed that even though the period of a temporary residence may be considerable, it cannot be ignored that when a person leaves a place where he had been residing as permanent resident for good i.e. with no intention to come back and goes to some other place to live there, the former place where he used to live, ceases to be his ordinary place of residence and the latter place becomes his ordinary place of residence. The question of residence is largely a question of intention. The Tribunal has to take into consideration all the relevant facts as brought on record to determine the place where the claimant resided looking to the attendant circumstances. The expression "resided" has to be understood in contradistinction to the place of casual or temporary residence.

It should not be lost sight of that the expression "resides" and the place where the accident occurred cannot be treated to be synonymous as they stipulate different situations, which are not interchangeable. The expression "resides" as used in the provision in question does not include in its ambit the places where the claimant might have been residing casually or while on some errand or other purposes where the evidence indicate the said place and residence to be of purely temporary nature and casual residence and not a place where the claimant ordinarily resided.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the finding of the Tribunal that the claim petition was maintainable and entertainable at Meerut is not liable to be disturbed. The submission urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is without merit and is not at all acceptable.

No other submission is either urged or pressed by the learned Counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal.

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, as brought on record, the impugned award does not require any interference.

The appeal consequently fails and is accordingly dismissed.

As prayed, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited in this Court by the f Insurer-appellant u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned so that it may be disbursed to the claimants.