SHILPA VAMAN BAPAT Vs. MANISH SATYANARAYANRAO MEHADIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No. 2 has not been served, but as the insurance company has been served and has been heard, this Court dispenses the need of service a notice of the final hearing of this petition.

(2.) SHRI Kotak, Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in view of the provisions of section 166 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as New M. V. Act for convenience), every claimant, in view of sub-section (1) of section 166, is entitled to file the claim petition either to 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. He submitted that the learned MACT did not properly interpret this provision and therefore, passed the order rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner for withdrawing her claim petition from MACT, Thane and for transferring it to MACT, Mumbai. He further submitted that the petitioner happens to be a student, and she is getting education, in Sukhasagar Institution, Ghatkopar, a suburb of Mumbai. Shri Kotak submitted that the member should have given a broader interpretation to words "carries on business". He submitted that as the petitioner is studying at Ghatkopar, her claim petition needs to be transferred to MACT, Mumbai. Mrs. Anita Agarwal supported the order which has been challenged by this petition.

(3.) THE provisions of new Motor Vehicles Act are to be treated as a further leads towards benevolence which this enactment wants to secure for the purpose of giving helping hand to hapless victims and hapless heirs of the persons who died in motor accident and for that purpose some words have been used in sub-section (2) of section 166 which can be quatted as "shall be made at the option of the claimant". This amended provision has attempted to open the wider range of the jurisdiction, where such claimants could file the petition. The words "carries on business" should not therefore, be taken in a stricter sense restricting the place to carrying on the business only. As a natural corollary, the word "occupation", and the meaning conveyed by it should be taken into consideration. "business" can be taken parallel to "occupation". The applicant may be carrying on business at particular places. He may be carrying on the occupation at particular place. When the MACT is entrusted with the obligation of administration of justice in context with the benevolent provisions of law, it has to act for achieving the purpose indicated by such enactment to its full spirit. Therefore, the learned member should have given a broader consideration to the prayer made by the present petitioner, and after taking into consideration that three claim petitions arising out of the same accident are being entertained and decided in Mumbai, 4th claim petition should have been withdrawn from M. A. C. T. , Thane, and transferred for disposal according to law to M. A. C. T. , Mumbai. After all, the administration of justice is to be done to the fullest tune of the benevolent enactment. What the M. A. C. T. has not done, this Court would do by exercising the jurisdiction vested in it in view of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the order which has been assailed by this petition, stands set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari in favour of the petitioner. The claim petition which is at present pending in Thane (bearing No. 3019/1998 of Mumbai, M. A. C. T.) stands transferred to M. A. C. T. , Mumbai where other three connected claim petitions are pending for disposal according to law. No order as to costs. Rule stands made absolute. The parties are directed to act upon the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.