K RASHIK Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. Facts:- The appellant [For short, 'the claimant'] on 25/10/2022 was riding his two-wheeler along with his brother when a mini truck being driven by the second respondent gave their two-wheeler a dash. The accident occurred in District Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh. The appellant filed a claim application under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [ For short, 'the Act of 1988'] before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai [For short, 'the Tribunal']. The first respondent, National Insurance Company Limited[ For short, 'the insurer'] on being served with the claim application raised an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Chennai. According to it, no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Chennai and in view of Sec. 166(2) of the Act of 1988, the said Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction. The learned Member of the Tribunal by his order dtd. 11/7/2025 did not accept the objection. He held that as the insurer had its business also at Chennai, the Tribunal at Chennai had jurisdiction to entertain the claim application. The insurer being aggrieved by this order filed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court by order dtd. 16/3/2026 held that since the accident occurred at Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, the Tribunal at Chittoor had jurisdiction to try the same. The Tribunal at Chennai, therefore, did not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the claim application. The order passed by the learned Member of the Tribunal, Chennai was set aside and the proceedings were transferred to the Tribunal at Chittoor. The claimant being aggrieved by the said order has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Mr. A. Sirajudeen, learned Senior Advocate for the claimant referred to various provisions of the Act of 1988 and especially Ss. 166 and 169 thereof. According to him, since the claimant was residing at Chennai and was also working there, the claim petition had been rightly filed at Chennai. In view of the provisions of Sec. 166(2) of the Act of 1988, the Tribunal at Chennai also had jurisdiction to try the claim application. The Tribunal at Chennai having correctly held that it had territorial jurisdiction, the High Court committed an error in holding otherwise. It was submitted that the Act of 1988 being a beneficial piece of legislation, it ought to be interpreted in a manner that would protect the interests of a claimant. The insurer was not justified in raising a technical objection, more so when it had its office also at Chennai. No prejudice was likely to be caused to it if the claim application was decided at Chennai. To substantiate his contention, the learned Senior Advocate placed reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Alpana Jana & others [F.M.A. 1454 of 2013 with C.A.N. 1858 of 2014]. He, thus, submitted that the impugned order passed by the High Court be set aside and the claim application be directed to be decided by the Tribunal at Chennai.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. S.L. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the insurer supported the impugned order. He submitted that the accident having occurred at Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, no part of cause of action had arisen at Chennai. Inviting attention to the averments in the claim application filed by the claimant, it was submitted that the address of the claimant indicated that he in fact resided in Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh. The same address was also mentioned in the present proceedings. Since no part of cause of action arose at Chennai, the Tribunal at Chennai had no territorial jurisdiction in view of Sec. 166(2) of the Act of 1988. The objection raised by the insurer had substance and it could not be treated merely to be a technical objection. The High Court having rightly held that the Tribunal at Chennai had no jurisdiction, the order directing the claim application to be entertained at Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh did not warrant any interference. He submitted that the civil appeal ought to be dismissed.