RAMJAN AND ORS. Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 7.7.2011, which has dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioners -claimants holding that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. Shri M.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the judgement of this Court in Mangi Lal & Anr. vs. Rajendra Singh & Anr., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1774/2010 dated 2.11.2011 and argued that the controversy raised, as far as question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgement. It was argued that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that since the accident had taken place at Jamsar, District Bikaner, the claim petition would also be maintainable only before MACT, Bikaner. Learned counsel submitted that the non -claimant -RSRTC has been impleaded as party respondent through its Managing Director at Parivahan Marg, Jaipur as owner of the bus and the registration of the bus is also at Jaipur. The legislature has taken a liberal approach in providing in Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 that the claim petition could be filed before 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. Since the headquarters of the RSRTC is not only at Jaipur, the defendant -RSRTC through its Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur has been impleaded as party -non -claimant before the Tribunal, the Tribunal could not have held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction. The reliance on the judgement of Supreme Court in M/s. Patel Roadways, Bombay vs. Prasad Trading Co., : AIR 1992 SC 1514 was wrongly placed by the learned Tribunal.

(2.) SHRI Virendra Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that the claim petition would not be maintainable before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur because the RSRTC should have been impleaded as party through Depot Manager at Bikaner Depot and not through Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. It is also argued that since the Tribunal has by order dated 7.7.2011, dismissed the claim petition with liberty to the claimants to file same before the Court having territorial jurisdiction, the respondent -RSRTC ought not be required to pay interest for the earlier period and should be required to pay interest only from the period the petitioner would now file fresh claim petition before the Tribunal.

(3.) THE question of interest was considered by this Court in the case of the New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Raju @ Muzahir Hussain & Ors., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 7093/2011 dated 23.5.2012 and the similar argument was rejected by holding thus: