VIRENDRA KUMAR VERMA AND ANOTHERversusPASHUPATI YADAV YADAV AND OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3512 of 2011

Virendra Kumar Verma And Another
                                                           .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

Pashupati Yadav Yadav And Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                     :   Vashishtha Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)                    :   Ajay Singh

Court No. - 50
                      HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

1. Heard the counsel for the appellant and Sri Ajay Singh the counsel for
the respondent no.3 Insurance Company.

2. The appeal has been preferred against an award dated 06.08.2011
whereby the claim petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed for
want of territorial jurisdiction.

3. The facts, as pleaded were that the deceased was coming home on
26.05.2008 when he met with an accident at Sivan Bypass Road, Sivan
Bihar, which resulted in his death. The claim petition was filed at Deoria,
State of U.P., mainly on the ground that the claimants were working for
gain at the time of filing of the Claim Petition at Deoria.

4. After considering the pleadings, as many as four issues were framed by
the Tribunal, however, the contention of the respondent that the Tribunal
lack territorial jurisdiction was accepted and the claim petition was
dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

5. In the light of the said, the submission of the counsel for the appellant
is that in terms of Section 166 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is the
option of the claimants to file the Claim Petition either within the
jurisdiction of the Court where the accident occurred or where the
claimants reside or carry out business. Section 166(2) of the Motor
Vehicles Act is quoted herein below :

166. Application for compensation (1) ........
                                                                                            FAFO No. 3512 of 2011
                                                                    2


                                    (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of
                                    the claimant, either to the 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, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be
                                    prescribed:

                                    Provided that where no claim for compensation under section 140 is
                                    made in such application, the application shall contain a separate
                                    statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.

                                    6. The Tribunal, while dismissing the Claim Petition held that the
                                    claimants had failed to adduce evidence in support of his contention in the
                                    form of either the statement of the Pradhan where he was staying or
                                    otherwise. The said award is clearly not in terms of the mandate of
                                    Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

                                    7. The appellant had specifically pleaded that he was working for gain at
                                    Deoria, there was no controversion or any material by the Insurance
                                    Company against the said assertion. Thus, no material existed, not to
                                    accept the contention of the claimants that they were working for gain at
                                    Deoria. More so, the claimants were working as daily wagerers, who are
                                    required to move to various places in search of job.

                                    8. In absence of any material by the respondents that the appellants were
                                    not working for gain at Deoria, the dismissal of the claim petition is
                                    wholly unjustified. The award dated 06.08.2011 is set aside. The matter is
                                    remanded to the Tribunal to pass orders on merits and in accordance with
                                    law treating the claim petition to be within jurisdiction. The Tribunal shall
                                    endevour to decide the Claim Petition expeditiously and in accordance
                                    with law.

                                    9. The appeal stands allowed.



                                                                                             (Pankaj Bhatia,J.)
                                    May 7, 2026
                                    VNP/-




Digitally signed by :-
VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad