ADARWATI Vs. MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order dated 10.10.98, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 27 of 1998, whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur has rejected the claim application filed by the applicants on the ground that the applicants are not residing at Jabalpur. They were residing at Narsinghpur at the time of the accident. The accident occurred in the District Seoni, near Chhapara. The applicants were permanent residents of village Paylikala, Police Station Chhapara, Tahsil Lakhnadaun, District Seoni and, therefore, they cannot file the claim petition on the basis that they were residing at Jabalpur at Chhui Khadan, Gangasagar, Garha. The permanent address given by the applicants in their application was that they were residents of village Paylikala, Police Station Chhapara, Tahsil Lakhnadaun, District Seoni. They had filed an affidavit to the effect that they were residing at Jabalpur and they do not want to shift from Jabalpur to their village Paylikala. In the statement of claim also in para 17-D they had stated that they were residing at Gangasagar, Garha, Jabalpur.

(2.) It is urged before me that sub-section (2) of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') was substituted which says that a claim can be made, inter alia, at the place where the claimant resides or carries on his business. The averment in the application and also the affidavit of the applicant No. 1 showed that the applicants resided at Jabalpur and they had no intention to leave this place and, therefore, this claim can be made at Jabalpur instead of any other place.

(3.) The Claims Tribunal was of the view that it was not clear whether the applicants could file their claim at Jabalpur in view of the averment made in the claim case and, therefore, rejected the application.