CHARAN PRATAPDAN KARNIDAN Vs. CHANDRAKISHOR GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in both the appeals is towards the common judgment, whereby both the claim petitions being MACP Nos.589 of 2012 and 590 of 2012 came to be dismissed, merely observing that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions.

(2.) It is very unfortunate to note that 4 th M.A.C. Tribunal (Aux.) Mahesana at Visnagar, on 6/7/2021, dismissed both the claim petitions even without perusing the provision of Sec. 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the " M.V. Act " for short). The learned Tribunal has not even entered into the issue regarding negligence and straightway dismissed the petitions finding faults with learned advocate for the petitioner, observing that the learned advocate has not uttered any word in the written argument or orally about the jurisdiction, and even noted that the learned advocate for the Insurance Company has raised issue about the jurisdiction.

(3.) The learned Tribunal perusing the claim petitions had observed that the applicants have not produced any documentary evidence showing that they are residing in the jurisdiction of the said Tribunal. The vehicle involved in the accident was of Madhya Pradesh and the owner was also residing at Madhya Pradesh and perusing the driving license of the applicant, the learned Tribunal considered him to be resident of Rajasthan, and he was given medical treatment at Jodhpur, Rajasthan. The Insurance Policy of the tanker was of Madhya Pradesh and the medical bills produced by the applicants were of Vadodara District.