JUDGMENT
Tapan Kumar Dutt, J.
1. The petitioner, i.e. the Insurance Company concerned, filed an application before the learned Court below for deciding the question of jurisdiction of the learned Claims Tribunal to decide the claim application filed by the Claimant-opposite party No. 1. By the impugned order the learned Court below has found that the Registered Office of the Insurance Company is situated within its territorial jurisdiction and thus rejected the petitioner’s application. A copy of the application for compensation has been annexed to the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The said application for compensation was filed in Form Comp. A under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules referred to in the said Form are Rules 329/330 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. From a copy of such application it appears that the address of the claimant-opposite party No. 1, as disclosed in such application, shows that the claimant-opposite party No. 1 is a resident of District Nadia. Such application also indicates that the alleged accident took place at Nadia and the address of the owner of the vehicle is also shown to be at Nadia. Such application also discloses that the Regional Office of the Insurance Company concerned is at 4, Mango Lane (1st Floor), Kolkata 700 001 but the Insurance Policy was issued by the Kalyani Branch of the said Insurance Company. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the learned Court below does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the said application for compensation and according to the said learned Advocate the application for compensation should have been filed by the claimant-opposite party No. 1 before the appropriate authority in the District of Nadia since the claimant’s residence, the residence of the owner of the vehicle concerned and the place of the alleged accident are all at Nadia. According to the learned Advocate for the opposite party No. 1, since the Regional Office of the Insurance Company is within the jurisdiction of the learned Court below, the learned Court below has jurisdiction to entertain the application for compensation. The learned Advocate for the opposite party No. 1 referred to Section 166(2) of the said Act and submitted that the option lies with the claimant with regard to the forum before which the application for compensation can be filed.
3. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is quoted below:
166. Application for compensation. – (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made-
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be:
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application.
(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 appellant.
(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under Sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.
4. Rules 329 and 330 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 are also quoted below:
329. Application for compensation. – (1) An application for compensation arising out of accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 165 of the Act, shall be made by a person specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred and such application shall be in Form COMP. A to these rules and shall contain the particulars specified in that Form.
(2) Every such application shall be sent to the Claims Tribunal or to the Chairman in case the Tribunal consists of more than one member, by registered post or may be presented to such member of the staff of the Tribunal as the Tribunal or, the Chairman, as the case may be, may authorise for the purpose and if so sent or presented, shall, unless the Tribunal or Chairman otherwise directs be made in duplicate and shall be signed by the application.
(3) There shall be appended to every such application the following documents, namely, (i) Medical certificate in Form COMP. B or Post-mortem Report, of Death Certificate; and (ii) First Information Report in respect of the accident.
(4) Officer-in-Charge of the police station shall, on demand by a person, who wishes to make an application for compensation and who is involved in an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or the legal successor of the deceased shall furnish to him within such period as specified by the Central Government under Section 106 of the Act, particulars of the vehicle involved in accident.
330. Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 329 of these rules every application for a claim under Section 140 of the Act, shall be filed before the Claims Tribunal in triplicate and shall be signed by the applicant and the following documents be appended to every such application-
(i) a report containing description of the accident;
(ii) First Information Report;
(iii) Injury Certificate or in case of death, Post-mortem Report or Death Certificate; and
(iv) a certificate regarding ownership and insurance particulars of vehicle involved in the accident from the Regional Transport Officer in Form (COMP. C), issued free of charge.
5. Reference was also made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner to Rule 343 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 which is also quoted below:
343. Procedure to be followed by Claims Tribunal in holding enquiries. – The following provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) as subsequently amended, shall, so far as may be, apply to the proceedings before every Claims Tribunal, namely:
(a) Sections 28, 79 and 82;
(b) in the First Schedule Order 5 Rules 9 to 13 (both inclusive) and 15 to 30 (both inclusive); Order 6 Rules 4, 5, 7, 0, 11, 16, 17 & 18 and Order 7 Rule 10; Order 8 Rules 2 to 5 (both inclusive), 9 and 10; Order 9; Order 11 Rules 12 to 15 (both inclusive) 17 to 21 (both inclusive), and 23; Order 12 Rules 1, 2, 3A, 4, 7 & 9; Order 13 Rules 3 to 10; (both inclusive), Order 14 Rules 2 & 5; Order 16; Order 17; Order 18 Rules 1 to 3 (both inclusive), 10 to 12 (both inclusive) and 15 to 18 (both inclusive); Order 20 Rules 1 to 3 (both inclusive), 8, 11 & 20; Order 23 Rules 1 to 3 (both inclusive); Order 24; Order 26 Rules 1 to 8 (both inclusive) and 15 to 18 (both inclusive); Order 28, Order 29; Order 30 Rules 1 to 3 (both inclusive); Order 32 Rules 1 to 15 (both inclusive); Order 37 Rules 1 to 7 (both inclusive);
(c) in so far as the Act and these rules make no provisions, those of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as subsequently amended, shall, so far as may, be apply to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal.
6. Reading Rule 343, it appears that since the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contains specific provisions with regard to the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal and it has been specifically provided as to where the application for compensation can be filed by the claimant, the question of applying the provisions of Civil Procedure Code in this regard does not arise.
7. Section 166(2) of the said Act no doubt gives an option to the claimant with regard to the forum where the application for compensation may be filed. The said section contemplates filing of the application for compensation either-
(a) To the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, or
(b) to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business, or
(c) within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides.
8. In the present case, the claimant-opposite party has stated in his application for compensation that he does not wish to make a claim for compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
9. It is interesting to note that in Section 166(2) it has been stipulated that the claim application can be made to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business but with regard to the defendant the said section only mentions the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides. With regard to the defendant the place of carrying on business does not find place in the said section. Therefore, the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides will have the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition but the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant may carry on business will not have the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. Since the said Section 166(2) is silent about the place where the defendant may carry on business and the section contemplates only the residence of the defendant, a question may arise as to what would happen if the owner of any offending vehicle is a corporate body. Normally, the word ‘residence’ may be associated with an individual person. A corporate body may have its Registered Office, a Branch Office, a Head Office or some kind of the office from where it may carry on its business but it would be difficult to say that a corporate body has its residence at such and such place.
10. In the present case, the claimant as well as the owner of the offending vehicle have their respective residence at Nadia. The application for compensation does not disclose the place of business, if any, of the claimant. The alleged accident took place at Nadia. Thus, reading the said provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, this Court finds it difficult to make the words “defendant resides”, appearing in Section 166(2), applicable to the Insurance Company concerned.
11. Reading Section 170 of the said Act, it appears that there may be cases where the Insurance Company concerned may not be originally impleaded as a party in the claim petition but the Claims Tribunal may direct that the insurer concerned shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding. Thus, the insurer may be a party in the proceeding ay at subsequent stage even though the insurer was not a party in the proceeding at the initial stage when the claim petition was filed. But Section 166(2) contemplates the stage of filing of the claim-petition. There again, it is difficult to associate the words ‘defendant resides’ to an insurer.
12. Rule 329 of West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, quoted above, stipulates that the claim petition shall be filed before the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred.
13. Thus, reading the provisions of the said Act and the said rules, this Court finds it difficult to accept the proposition that only because the Regional Office of the insurer is situated within the jurisdiction of the learned Court below, the said Court will have the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.
14. The learned Advocate for the claimant/opposite party has referred to an order 27.09.05 passed by an Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in CO. No. 2199 of 2005, a copy of which was placed before this Court. It appears from the said order dated 27.09.05 passed in the said case that in the said case admitted position was that the accident occurred outside the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta and admittedly, the claimant and the owner of the vehicle both were residing outside the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court but the Insurance Company concerned had its registered office within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta. His Lordship was pleased to hold in the said case that under Section 166(2) of the said Act the choice of forum is left with the claimant and the City Civil Court at Calcutta, within whose jurisdiction the registered office of the Insurance Company is situated will, also have jurisdiction. In the said order dated 27.09.05 a reference was made to a decision Neio Moga Transport Co. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.
15. It appears from reading the said New Moga Transport Company’s case (supra) that the said reported case dealt with the provisions of Section 20 CPC. This Court finds that the facts and circumstances of the said reported case is not similar to the facts and circumstances of the present case. This Court finds it difficult to apply the said reported case to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
16. With respect, this Courts finds it difficult to agree with the view of the Hon’ble Single Judge as reflected in the said order dated 27.09.2005 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in CO. No. 2199 of 2005. The question involved in the present case is in a case where the claimant and the owner of the offending vehicle reside in the district of Nadia, the relevant insurance policy is issued by the Kalyani Branch of the Insurance Company concerned, the alleged accident takes place in the district of Nadia but the regional office of the Insurance Company concerned is situated at Calcutta within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta, whether or not the City Civil Court at Calcutta will have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the claim application of the claimant.
With respect, since this Court differs in view and/or opinion from that of the Hon’ble Single Judge, as indicated above, this matter may be placed before His Lordship the Hon’ble Chief Justice for necessary assignment of this matter to a larger Bench.
Tapan Kumar Datt, J.