K Rashik v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
Background
The appellant met with an accident in District Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, while riding a two-wheeler, and filed a compensation claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Chennai. The insurer objected that no part of the cause of action arose at Chennai and that the Tribunal there lacked territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal rejected the objection, but the Madras High Court, in a revision filed by the insurer, held that only the Tribunal at Chittoor (nearer the accident site and the claimant's actual residence in Chittoor district) had jurisdiction, and transferred the case there. The claimant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a claimant may file at the place of the accident, where he resides or carries on business, or where the defendant (owner/driver) resides, but this last option does not extend to where an insurer resides or does business, since impleading an insurer as a party is optional and the provision's wording deliberately omits "carries on business" for defendants. Since the claimant himself impleaded the insurer and the insurer raised its objection at the very first stage (not on appeal after an award), Section 21 CPC's stricter "failure of justice" threshold for appellate-stage objections did not apply. On facts, the claimant resided in Chittoor district (not Chennai) and the accident and driver's residence were also in that district, so no part of the cause of action arose at Chennai; the High Court's transfer of the case to the Chittoor Tribunal was correct, and the appeal was dismissed.
Lesson Learnt
In motor accident claims, a claimant cannot manufacture jurisdiction merely because the insurance company has an office at a convenient location. Territorial jurisdiction depends on where the accident occurred, where the claimant genuinely resides or does business, or where the vehicle owner/driver resides, and an objection raised at the outset (before any award) is judged on the plain statutory test, not the higher "failure of justice" bar that applies only to late, post-award objections.