Rekha Palli DECISION
Rekha Palli, J.
1. The present petition under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act preferred by the wife and the two minor sons of the deceased Sh. Krishna Kumar seeks to assail the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in MACT No. 529/2022. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that since the fateful accident leading to the death of Shri Krishna Kumar had taken place at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, the Tribunal did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal while rejecting the petitioner's claim has failed to appreciate that it was an admitted position that the office of the respondent insurer being in Delhi was within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi. He submits that once the office of the insurer is in Delhi, the claim petition was, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Malati Sardar vs. National Insurance Company Limited and ors. MANU/SC/0005/2016 : (2016) 3 SCC 43, very much maintainable before the Tribunal, which aspect the Tribunal has failed to appreciate.
3. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order, I find that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has rejected the claim of the appellant merely because the accident took place in Ghaziabad, U.P. Once it was undisputed that the insurer is having an office at Delhi, the Tribunal ought to have entertained the petitioners' claim instead of rejecting the same on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
4. At this stage, reference may also be made to a recent decision of this Court in 'M/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Gunja Rai and Ors. [(MAC.APP. 41/2023) decided on 01.02.2023] wherein the Court after noticing the decision of the Apex Court in Malati Sardar (supra) held as under:-
8. Now coming to the appellants' plea that the claim petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. In my view, even this ground is wholly unmerited. Once it is an admitted case that the appellant/insurer is carrying out business in Delhi, the learned Tribunal was, in the light of the settled legal position, justified in holding that the claim petition was maintainable. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Limited and ors MANU/SC/0005/2016 : (2016)3 SCC 43, wherein it was held as under:
"10. The question for consideration thus is whether the Tribunal at Kolkata had the jurisdiction to decide the claim application under Section 166 of the Act when the accident took place outside Kolkata jurisdiction and the claimant also resided outside Kolkata jurisdiction, but the respondent being a juristic person carried on business at Kolkata. Further question is whether in the absence of failure of justice, the High Court could set aside the award of the Tribunal on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
11. In our view, the matter is fully covered by the decisions of this Court in Mantoo Sarkar [Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., MANU/SC/8464/2008 : (2009) 2 SCC 244 : (2009) 1 SCC (Civ) 482 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 738] . It will be worthwhile to quote the statutory provision of Section 166(........