Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 16 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant K Rashik vs. Respondents National Insurance Company Ltd (insurer) and another respondent (driver of mini‑truck).
  • Accident Details: On 25‑Oct‑2022, while riding a two‑wheeler with his brother, the appellant was struck by a mini‑truck driven by the second respondent at Thatimaakulapalli Cross Road, Nerabaillu‑Yerravaripalem road, Y.V. Palem Mandal, District Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh.
  • Claim Filing: The appellant filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
  • Insurer’s Objection: National Insurance Co. Ltd. raised an objection on 11‑Mar‑2025, asserting that no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Chennai Tribunal, invoking Section 166(2).
  • Tribunal’s Initial Order: The Tribunal member, on 11‑Jul‑2025, rejected the objection, holding that the insurer’s business presence in Chennai conferred jurisdiction.
  • High Court Revision: A Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 was filed; the Madras High Court (Single Judge) on 16‑Mar‑2026 held that, because the accident occurred in Chittoor district, the appropriate Tribunal was the one at Chittoor, setting aside the Chennai order and directing transfer of proceedings.
  • Appeal: The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that residence in Chennai and the insurer’s Chennai office gave the Chennai Tribunal jurisdiction under Section 166(2).
  • Counsel Submissions:
  • Senior Advocate A. Sirajudeen argued for a purposive interpretation favoring claimant’s residence and insurer’s Chennai office.
  • Counsel S.L. Gupta for the insurer emphasized the accident location, claimant’s residence in Chittoor, and the plain language of Section 166(2).

Legal Reasoning

  • Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides three options for a claimant: file where the accident occurred, where the claimant resides or carries on business, or where the defendant (i.e., the defendant – not the insurer) resides.
  • The Supreme Court noted that the statute distinguishes between “claimant resides or carries on business” and “defendant resides”; it does not extend the “defendant resides” clause to insurers, who are optional parties under the Act.
  • The Court affirmed that an insurer, when impleaded as a party‑respondent, may raise any defence, including a jurisdictional objection, as per United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shila Datta & Others (2011 INSC 759).
  • The claimant’s address in the application was “No. 1‑374, Sandu Street, Damalcheruvu Post, Pakala Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh‑517 152,” with no allegation of business activity in Chennai.
  • No part of the cause of action arose within Chennai’s local limits; therefore, the Chennai Tribunal lacked territorial jurisdiction.
  • The Court distinguished this case from earlier precedents where jurisdictional objections were raised at appellate stages, invoking Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Here, the objection was raised at the initial tribunal stage, so Section 166(2) governs, and the higher threshold of showing “failure of justice” under Section 21 does not apply.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court order dated 16‑Mar‑2026.
  • The entire proceedings are to be transferred from the Chennai Claims Tribunal to the Claims Tribunal at Chittoor.
  • The claim application shall be tried by the Chittoor Tribunal expeditiously.
  • The civil appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • The pending interlocutory application is also disposed of.

Topics: Territorial Jurisdiction, Motor Vehicles Act