LI Network
Published on: 5 August 2023 at 16:10 IST
The Supreme Court recently ruled that claimants are not obligated to file a Section 166 application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) having jurisdiction over the area where the accident occurred.
The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta addressed a transfer petition filed under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, on behalf of a defendant in a claim petition lodged before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh.
The petitioner, the owner of the offending vehicle, sought the transfer of the claim petition to the MACT in Darjeeling, West Bengal, citing that the accident had taken place in Siliguri, Darjeeling district.
The Supreme Court observed that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not mandate claimants to file a compensation application under Section 166 before the MACT with jurisdiction over the accident location.
Instead, subsection (2) of Section 166 provides the claimants with the option to approach the MACT within the local limits of their residence, business, or the defendant’s residence.
As the claimants chose to approach the MACT in Farrukhabad, Uttar Pradesh, a forum they are legally entitled to choose, the court rejected the petitioner’s grievance.
The court also addressed the petitioner’s contention that language might be a barrier since all their witnesses are from Siliguri.
The bench rejected this argument, emphasizing that in a linguistically diverse country like India with at least 22 official languages, it is expected that witnesses produced before the MACT in Fatehgarh, Uttar Pradesh, would communicate in Hindi, the national language.
Accepting the petitioner’s contention would prejudice the claimants, who may not be able to communicate in Bengali.
Based on the above considerations, the Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petition in the case titled Pramod Sinha v. Suresh Singh Chauhan & Ors.
