Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ... on 5 December, 2022
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010246652022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./823/2022
RAMKRISHNA RAY AND ANR.
S/O LATE MANMOHAN RAY
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEOHATI DAKSHIN, PARA/DEOHATI BHATI PARA,
PS ABHAYAPURI, DIST BONGAIGOAN, ASSAM
2: BISHAJA BALA RAY
W/O RAM KRISHNA RAY
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEOHATI DAKSHIN
PARA/DEOHATI BHATI PARA
PS ABHAYAPURI
DIST BONGAIGOAN
ASSA
VERSUS
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE,
GS ROAD, GUWAHATI 5
2:RAHAM ALI
S/O SAHAJAHAN ALI (SAJAHAN ALI)
VILLAGE LAKHIPUR
PS BAGUAN
DIST GOALPARA
ASSAM 783129
3:NOUSHAD ALI
S/O GOLAM HUSSAIN
RESIDENT OF LAKHIPUR
PS AND DIST GOALPARA ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M CHOUDHURY
Page No.# 2/3
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
ORDER
Date : 05-12-2022
Heard Mr. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned
counsel for the respondent.
This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against impugned
Judgment dated 28.09.2022, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta
in MAC Case No.113/2021. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the claim
petition, in MAC Case No.113/2021, was not allowed and the same was dismissed on the ground of
jurisdiction. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants, also submits that the learned Tribunal
had opined that the claim petition was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the said Tribunal and on
scrutiny of the case records, the learned Tribunal observed that the parties are residents of neighboring
District and the accident also took place outside that District and further, there is no indication in the
evidence on record that any of the claimants carry on business within that District and in that view of
the matter, the learned Tribunal hold that the claimants were not entitled to any relief in that case,
which was filed in violation of Section-166(2) of the M.V. Act, and hence, dismissed the same. The
learned counsel for the appellants, further submitted that the learned Member, MACT could have
returned the case to the tribunal having jurisdiction, instead of dismissing the claimants' petition.
In this context, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there cannot be
strict compliance in terms of the Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this case,
however, direction may be given to the present appellants to file fresh application before the concerned
Tribunal, where its jurisdiction lies.
After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides, I have perused the
judgment passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta, it reveals that the
claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the claimants filed the MAC. Case No.113/2021, in
violation of Section-166(2) of the M.V. Act.
Page No.# 3/3
Accordingly, it is seen that the claim petition was dismissed on the point of jurisdiction and not
on merit. Accordingly, the judgment and order passed by the learned Member MACT, in case
No.113/2021, dated 28.09.2022, stands set aside with a direction to the appellants to file fresh
application before the learned Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction to try the same.
With the above observation, and direction the present appeal stands disposed off.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
