VALLIYAMMAL Vs. SASIKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order of dismissal passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Erode (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), in MCOP.No.358 of 2006 on the ground of jurisdiction is under challenge in this revision.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners relying on a judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4548 of 2007 (Morgina Begam Vs. Managing Director, Hanuma Plantation Ltd.,) dated 26.09.2007, (It is represented by the learned counsel that the said judgment was down loaded with the help of his computer), would contend that the expression 'ordinarily resides' means where the person claiming compensation normally resides at the time of filing the claim petition and that in the said ratio, the claim petition was filed by the claimants, the parents of the victim before the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Zone-III, Tezpur, under Section 21(1)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act. THE said application was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the petition is not maintainable since it has been filed before the forum, which has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. As per section 21(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, a petition claiming compensation can be filed at the forum where:

(3.) IN fine, the order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Erode, (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) in MCOP.No.358 of 2006 is modified to the effect as the claim petition is directed to be returned instead of dismissing the same to the claimants for representing the same before the appropriate forum within one month from the date of receipt of the claim petition from the Tribunal. With the above modification, the revision is disposed of. No costs.