The Supreme Court in the case Pramod Sinha vs Suresh Singh Chauhan observed and has stated that it is not mandatory for the claimants in order to lodge the application of the compensation as stated under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the MACT having jurisdiction over the area where the accident had occurred in the matter.
The bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta in the case observed and has noted while deciding of the transfer petition that the claimants can approach the MACT within the local limits of whose jurisdiction they reside or carry on business or where the defendant resides.
Therefore, the one ground which is being raised in the transfer plea moved by the owner of the offending vehicle was that the accident had taken place at Siliguri in the district of Darjeeling, West Bengal and, thus, it would be expedient for the MACT at Darjeeling in order to decide the claim made in the petition.
The court in the case observed and has stated that the claimants having chosen the option to approach the MACT, Farrukhabad at Fatehgarh, U.P., a forum that law permits them to choose and no such grievance can be raised by the petitioner. Hence, the contentions raised is misconceived and stands overruled.
The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta in the case observed that In a country as diverse as India, it is no doubt true that people speak different languages. Thus, there being at least 22 (twenty-two) official languages. Therefore, Hindi being the national language, it is expected of the witnesses who would be produced by the petitioner before the MACT, Fatehgarh, U.P. to communicate and also to convey their version in Hindi.
However, if the said court accept the petitioner, it being the claimants who would be seriously prejudiced not being in a position to communicate and convey their version in Bengali.
It has also been contended by the petitioner in the plea that since all his witness are from Siliguri, language could be a barrier.