In K Rashik v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, the Supreme Court held that territorial jurisdiction of a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is confined to the place where the accident occurred, where the claimant resides or carries on business, or where the defendant resides. The provision does not confer jurisdiction merely because the insurer carries on business or has an office within the Tribunal’s limits; the expression “defendant resides” does not include the place where the insurer conducts business.
The Court further held that although Impleadment of the insurer in a claim petition is not mandatory, once the claimant impleads the insurer as a party-respondent, the insurer may raise all legally permissible objections, including territorial jurisdiction. The insurer is not, however, treated as the “defendant” for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction under Section 166(2).
The Court clarified that an objection to territorial jurisdiction raised at the initial stage is governed by Section 166(2), whereas an objection raised after the award or at the appellate stage must additionally satisfy Section 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure by demonstrating failure of justice. Since the accident occurred in Tirupati, the claimant resided in Chittoor, and no part of the cause of action arose in Chennai, the proceedings were rightly transferred to the Tribunal at Chittoor.
