K Rashik v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
[2026] 10 S.C.R. 118 : 2026 INSC 996
K Rashik
v.
National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
(Civil Appeal No. 10706 of 2026)
16 September 2026
[Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by
the High Court that since the accident occurred at Chittoor, only
MACT, Chittoor had jurisdiction, setting aside the order passed by
the Member of the Tribunal, Chennai that since the insurer had its
business also at Chennai, the tribunal at Chennai had jurisdiction.
Headnotes†
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166, 166(2) – Territorial
jurisdiction – Claim application by the appellant-claimant
before the MACT Chennai – Insurer-respondent objected to
the territorial jurisdiction of the tribunal at Chennai on the
ground that no part of cause of action had arisen within the
jurisdiction of the tribunal at Chennai, and in view of s.166(2),
the said Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction – However,
the tribunal rejected the objection – Petition u/Art.227 of
the Constitution by the Insurer – High Court held that since
the accident occurred at Chittoor, only MACT, Chittoor had
jurisdiction – Order passed by the Member of the Tribunal,
Chennai set aside and the proceedings transferred to the
Tribunal at Chittoor – Correctness:
Held: Error committed by the Tribunal at Chennai in holding that
it had territorial jurisdiction rightly corrected by the High Court by
setting aside that order – Claimant resides at Chittoor, Andhra
Pradesh, as pleaded – Accident occurred in District Tirupati – No
averment in the claim application stating that the claimant carries
on business elsewhere – Even the driver of the offending vehicle is
stated to reside in District Chittoor – It is, thus, clear that no part of
cause of action had arisen within the local limits of District Chennai
so as to clothe the Tribunal there with territorial jurisdiction – Also,
in a claim application filed u/s.166(1), it is not mandatory for a
* Author
[2026] 10 S.C.R. 119
K Rashik v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
claimant to implead an insurer as a defendant – Claimant has
a choice in that regard – However, if the claimant impleads the
insurer as a party to the claim application, the insurer would be
free to contest the proceedings on all permissible grounds, without
any restriction – It can raise objection to the territorial jurisdiction
of the tribunal – Furthermore, s.166(2) indicates that a claimant
has an option to file a claim application either before the Tribunal
having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred
or the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits
of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides – As regards use of
the expression ‘within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
defendant resides’ in s.166(2), it is clear that the same does
not intend to refer to an insurer as a defendant – Claimant has
an option to file a claim application even where ‘the defendant
resides’ – On facts, the claimant himself impleaded the insurer
as a party to the claim application and it raised an objection to
territorial jurisdiction before the Tribunal itself – As the claim
application of the claimant awaits adjudication by the Tribunal
on merits, the requirements of s.166(2) of the Act of 1988 have
to be satisfied and s.21(1) CPC not attracted – Furthermore, Act
of 1988 redresses the hardships flowing from a motor vehicle
accident, amongst other objects – It must be interpreted keeping
these objectives in mind – However, an interpretation which does
not flow from the plain reading of the statutory provisions despite
a purposive interpretation cannot be commended – Interpretation
that does not find any statutory support cannot be accepted and
an interpretation that is in tune with the plain language of the
statute ought to be preferred – Thus, the order passed by the
Single Judge of the High Court upheld – Direction to transmit the
entire proceedings from the Tribunal at Chennai to the Tribunal
at Chittoor correctly issued. [Paras 4, 6, 8-10, 14-16]
Case Law Cited
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta & Others, 2011 INSC
759 : [2011] 14 SCR 763; Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. and Others, 2008 INSC 1453 : [2008] 17 SCR 753;
Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others,
2016 INSC 12 : [2016] 1 SCR 601; Balveer Batra v. The New
India Assurance Company and Another, 2024 INSC 361 : [2024]
2 SCR 1204 - referred to.
120 [2026] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alpana Jana & Others, F.M.A.
1454 of 2013 with C.A.N. 1858 of 2014 (passed by Calcutta
High Court) – referred to.
List of Acts
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Constitution of India; Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
List of Keywords
Insurer’s business; Territorial jurisdiction; Cause of action; Within
the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides;
Impleadment of insurer as defendant; Carries on business;
Purposive interpretation.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10706 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.03.2026 of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in CRP No. 3933 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
A. Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv., C.R.Jaya Sukin, Ms. Yashika Anand,
Ms. Seerat Nissar Bhat, Abhishek Tyagi, Praveen Kumar L., Ms.
Laveena Tak, M. Dhandapani, Roshan Chapagain, Narender
Kumar Verma.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Sanathana Bhaarath, S.L. Gupta.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Atul S. Chandurkar, J.
A. Facts:
1. The appellant1 on 25.10.2022 was riding his two-wheeler along with
his brother when a mini truck being driven by the second respondent
1 For short, ‘the claimant’
[2026] 10 S.C.R. 121
K Rashik v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
gave their two-wheeler a dash. The accident occurred in District
Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh. The appellant filed a claim application
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 2 before the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai 3. The first respondent,
National Insurance Company Limited 4 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 Section 166(2) of the Act of 1988, the said Tribunal had
no territorial jurisdiction. The learned Member of the Tribunal by
his order dated 11.07.2025 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 dated 16.03.2026 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.
B. Submissions of Counsel:
2. Mr. A. Sirajudeen, learned Senior Advocate for the claimant referred
to various provisions of the Act of 1988 and especially Sections 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 Section 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
2 For short, ‘the Act of 1988’
3 For short, ‘the Tribunal’
4 For short, ‘the insurer’
122 [2026] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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 5. 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 Section 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.
C. Analysis and consideration:
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and with
their assistance we have perused the claim application, the objection
raised by the insurer as well as the impugned order. We have also
considered the relevant provisions of the Act of 1988. Having given
our due consideration to the entire material on record, we are of the
view that the objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal
at Chennai to entertain the claim application is well founded and it
was, thus, rightly upheld by the High Court.
5 F.M.A. 1454 of 2013 with C.A.N. 1858 of 2014
[2026] 10 S.C.R. 123
K Rashik v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
D. Averments in the claim application:
5. In the claim application filed by the claimant under Section 166(1)
of the Act of 1988, it has been pleaded that he met with an accident
on 25.10.2022 when he was riding his two-wheeler with his brother
as a pillion rider. When the two-wheeler was at Thatimaakulapalli
Cross Road on the Nerabaillu to Yerravaripalem road, Y.V. Palem
Mandal, District Tirupati, a mini truck driven by the second respondent
gave it a dash. The claimant underwent treatment as an in-patient
at a hospital in Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh. His brother lodged a First
Information Report on 28.10.2022 at Yerravaripalem Police Station,
District Tirupati. The address of the claimant as mentioned in the
claim application reads thus :
“No. 1-374, Sandu Street, Damalcheruvu Post, Pakala
Mandal, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh- 517 152.”
In the entire claim application, there is no pleading to indicate the
manner in which some part of cause of action arose within the
territorial limits of the Tribunal at Chennai. The insurer on 11.03.2025
raised an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal at
Chennai by stating that no part of the cause of action had arisen
there. In his counter affidavit, the claimant stated that he was residing
at a distance of one hundred and fifty kilometers from the Tribunal
at Chennai and, therefore, the Tribunal had jurisdiction. He further
stated that the head office of the insurer was at Chennai.
E. Right of insurer to raise an objection to the territorial jurisdiction
of the Tribunal:
6. At the outset, it would be necessary to consider the claimant’s
contention that the insurer had no legal basis to raise an objection
based on territorial jurisdiction. It was urged that as the insurer also
had an office at the place where the claim application was filed, no
prejudice was caused to it on this count.
This contention cannot be accepted. In a claim application filed under
Section 166(1) of the Act of 1988, it is not mandatory for a claimant
to implead an insurer as a defendant. The claimant has a choice in
that regard. However, if the claimant impleads the insurer as a party
to the claim application, the insurer would be free to contest the
proceedings on all permissible grounds, without any restriction. This
124 [2026] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
position is clear in view of the decision of the three Judge Bench
in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shila Datta & Others 6. In
paragraphs 8, 9 and 11 of the decision, it has been held as under:
“8. When an insurer is impleaded as a party – respondent
to the claim petition, as contrasted from merely being
a noticee under section 149(2) of the Act, its rights are
significantly different. If the insurer is only a noticee, it can
only raise such of those grounds as are permissible in
law under section 149(2). But if he is a party-respondent,
it can raise, not only those grounds which are available
under section 149(2), but also all other grounds that are
available to a person against whom a claim is made. It
therefore follows that if a claimant impleads the insurer
as a party-respondent, for whatever reason, then as
such respondent, the insurer will be entitled to urge all
contentions and grounds which may be available to it.
9. The Act does not require the claimants to implead
the insurer as a party respondent. But if the claimants
choose to implead the insurer as a party, not being
a noticee under section 149(2), the insurer can urge
all grounds and not necessarily the limited grounds
mentioned in section 149(2) of the Act. If the insurer
is already a respondent (having been impleaded as a
party respondent), it need not seek the permission of the
Tribunal under section 170 of the Act to raise grounds
other than those mentioned in section 149(2) of the Act.
The entire scheme and structure of Chapters XI and XII
is that the claimant files a claim petition only against the
owner and driver and the tribunal issues notice to the
insurer under section 149(2) so that it can be made liable
to pay the amount awarded against the insurer and if
necessary, deny liability under the policy of insurance,
on any of the grounds mentioned in section 149(2). If
an insurer is only a noticee and not a party respondent,
having regard to the decision in Nicolletta Rohtagi, it
can defend the claim only on the grounds mentioned in
section 149(2) and not any of the other grounds relating
6 2011 INSC 759
[2026] 10 S.C.R. 125
K Rashik v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
to merits available to the insured-respondent. This is the
position even where the claim proceedings are initiated
suo moto under sections 149(7) and 158(6) of the Act,
without any formal application by the claimants, as the
insurer is only a noticee under section 149(2) of the Act.
11. Therefore, where the insurer is a party-respondent,
either on account of being impleaded as a party by the
tribunal under section 170 or being impleaded as a
party-respondent by the claimants in the claim petition
voluntarily, it will be entitled to contest the matter by
raising all grounds, without being restricted to the
grounds available under section 149(2) of the Act. The
claim petition is maintainable against the owner and
driver without impleading the insurer as a party. When
a statutory notice is issued under section 149(2) by the
tribunal, it is clear that such notice is issued not to implead
the insurer as a party-respondent but merely to put it on
notice that a claim has been made in regard to a policy
issued by it and that it will have to bear the liability as
and when an award is made in regard to such claim.
Therefore, it cannot, as of right, require that it should
be impleaded as a party-respondent. But it can however
be made a party-respondent either by the claimants
voluntarily in the claim petition or by the direction of
the Tribunal under section 170 of the Act. Whatever be
the reason or ground for the insurer being impleaded
as a party, once it is a party-respondent, it can raise all
contentions that are available to resist the claim.”
Thus, on being impleaded as a defendant in a claim application, the
insurer can, in the facts of the case, raise an objection to the territorial
jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the claim application. In that
view of the matter, as the insurer was impleaded as a defendant
by the claimant herein, the insurer could object to the territorial
jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
F. Section 166 of the Act of 1988:
7. The aspect of territorial jurisdiction for filing a claim application under
Section 166(1) of the Act of 1988 is governed by Section 166(2).
Section 166(2) reads thus:
126 [2026] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“166 (2): Every application under sub-section (1) shall
be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the
Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in
which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal
within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant
resides or carries on business or within the local limits
of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall
be in such form and contain such particulars as may
be prescribed:”
The aforesaid provision indicates that a claimant has an option to
file a claim application either before the Tribunal having jurisdiction
over the area in which the accident occurred or the Tribunal within
the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries
on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
defendant resides.
8. A claimant, thus, has three choices as regards the place where an
application for compensation under Section 166(1) of the Act of
1988 could be filed. These are (a) at the place where he resides or
(b) the area where the accident occurred or (c) the claimant carries
on business. Besides these three options, a fourth option is also
available to a claimant inasmuch as a claim application can also
be filed within the local limits of the Tribunal where the defendant
resides. It is pertinent to note that the words used are ‘within the
local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides’. What has
been prescribed is the residence of the defendant and not the
place where ‘the defendant carries on business’. Notably, in Section
166(2) itself the expression used with reference to a claimant is ‘or
to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
the claimant resides or carries on business’, while the expression
used with reference to a defendant is ‘the defendant resides’ for
the purposes of conferring territorial jurisdiction. Thus, different
expressions have been used qua a claimant and a defendant in
Section 166(2) itself in the matter of conferring territorial jurisdiction
for the making of a claim application. The legislative intent is, thus,
clear. While a claimant can file a claim application also at the place
where he carries on business, he may also choose to file it at the
place where the defendant resides. The place where the defendant
carries on business has been specifically omitted while specifying
territorial jurisdiction of a Tribunal. Section 166(2) is distinctly worded
[2026] 10 S.C.R. 127
K Rashik v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
from Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 7 as regards
the criteria for invoking territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Under
Section 20 of the Code, the Court within whose jurisdiction the
defendant carries on business also has territorial jurisdiction to try
a suit, which stipulation is not found in Section 166(2) of the Act
of 1988.
G. Insurer, whether a defendant in context of Section 166(2) :
9. As regards use of the expression ‘within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the defendant resides’ in Section 166(2) is concerned,
it is clear that the same does not intend to refer to an insurer as a
defendant. This is in view of the fact that impleadment of an insurer
as a defendant in a claim petition is not mandatory but is optional
at the choice of a claimant as laid down in Shila Datta and Others
(supra). The contesting defendant in a claim application would
principally be the owner and/or driver of the offending vehicle,
amongst others. The claimant has an option to file a claim application
even where ‘the defendant resides’. In view of use of this expression
in Section 166(2) of the Act of 1988, it is indicative of the position
that the word ‘defendant’ used therein does not include an insurer.
This aspect is further clear in view of Section 168(1) of the Act of
1988, which requires the Tribunal to give notice of an application filed
under Section 166 to the insurer. Where an insurer is not impleaded
as a party, the Tribunal has to give notice of the application to an
insurer. Irrespective of its impleadment, an insurer gets knowledge
of proceedings filed under Section 166(1) from the Tribunal. This is
perhaps one of the reasons for not using the expression ‘or carries
on business’ in Section 166(2) of the Act of 1988, as an insurer is
not always expected to be arrayed as a defendant.
H. Section 166(2) and Section 21 of the Code:
10. While considering an objection raised to the territorial jurisdiction of a
Tribunal, the factors material at the original stage of the proceedings
and those material at subsequent stages of the proceedings are
also relevant. Under Section 169 of the Act of 1988, the Tribunal is
required to follow a summary procedure as it thinks fit while deciding
7 For short, ‘the Code’
128 [2026] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
proceedings before it. The Tribunal has been granted powers of a Civil
Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and other ancillary
matters. The general principles flowing from the Code have to be
kept in mind while adjudicating an objection to territorial jurisdiction.
In original proceedings of a claim application before the Tribunal,
Section 166(2) of the Act of 1988 provides for various options to a
claimant to make an application for compensation under Section
166(1). The requirements prescribed in the matter of territorial
jurisdiction would, therefore, have to be satisfied. However, when
an objection to territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal is pursued at an
appellate stage or at any later stage after the award is passed, the
requirements prescribed under Section 21(1) of the Code have to
be satisfied. Besides showing that an objection to the competence
of the Tribunal based on territorial jurisdiction was raised before
it, the adjudication undertaken by the Tribunal despite absence of
territorial jurisdiction has resulted in failure of justice is also required
to be shown. In other words, unless a party raising an objection to
the territorial jurisdiction at an appellate stage shows that for want
of territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal which considered the original
proceedings, there has been a failure of justice, such objection cannot
be entertained at that stage. The stage at which an objection based
on lack of territorial jurisdiction is being considered is, therefore,
relevant. If the same is raised before the Tribunal at an initial stage
of the proceedings, as in the present case, the provisions of Section
166(2) of the Act of 1988 would guide the Tribunal in the matter.
If such objection is considered post award at an appellate stage,
the threshold required would be to demonstrate failure of justice
by virtue of the Tribunal exercising jurisdiction despite absence of
territorial authority to do so.
11. We may in this context refer to a few decisions of this Court
considering an objection to territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal
vis-à-vis Section 21 of the Code. In Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others 8, a claim application seeking
compensation came to be filed before the Tribunal at Nainital. The
claimant was working as a migrant seasonal agricultural labourer and
extracting sand gravel from a river in District Nainital. The Tribunal
entertained the claim application and held it had territorial jurisdiction
8 2008 INSC 1453
[2026] 10 S.C.R. 129
K Rashik v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
to decide the claim application as the insurer had a branch office at
Nainital. It, accordingly, determined the amount of compensation and
passed an award in favour of the claimant. In an appeal preferred
by the insurer, the High Court held that the Tribunal at Nainital did
not have jurisdiction as the claimant was not residing in District
Nainital when the claim application was filed and, hence, set aside
the award. This Court in the appeal preferred by the claimant held
that a claimant had a wide option to file a claim application and
residence of a claimant would also determine the jurisdiction of a
Tribunal. The aspect of residence would, however, depend upon
the facts of each case. It observed that the claimant was a migrant
labourer and had been working in District Nainital when the accident
took place. This fact was neither denied nor disputed. It was also
observed that the Tribunal ought to exercise jurisdiction having
regard to the ingredients laid down under Section 166(2) of the Act
of 1988. After referring to Section 21(1) of the Code, it was held
that the insurer in its appeal had failed to point out any prejudice
caused to it with the claim application being entertained at Nainital.
In absence of any prejudice being pointed out, this Court exercised
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and restored
the award of the Tribunal. It may be noted that the issue of lack of
territorial jurisdiction was raised at the appellate stage and, hence,
the provisions of Section 21(1) of the Code were attracted.
12. In Malati Sardar vs. National Insurance Company Limited
and Others9, a claim application was filed seeking compensation
before the Tribunal at Kolkata. The Tribunal entertained the said
claim application and determined the amount of compensation. In
the appeal preferred by the insurer, an objection on the ground of
absence of territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal was raised. The
High Court upheld the insurer’s objection and directed the claimant
to refund the amount of compensation received by him. This Court
relied on the decision in Mantoo Sarkar (supra) and held that in
view of Section 21 of the Code, an objection based on lack of
territorial jurisdiction could not have been entertained in absence
of any prejudice being shown. It was no doubt observed that there
was no bar to a claim application being filed at a place where the
insurer, being the main contesting party, had its business. However,
9 2016 INSC 12
130 [2026] 10 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
in absence of any prejudice being shown by the insurer and there
being no failure of justice, the judgment of the High Court was set
aside and the award of the Tribunal was restored.
13. In Balveer Batra vs. The New India Assurance Company and
Another10, a claim application was filed at the Tribunal in District
Nainital. The accident had occurred in the neighbouring district of
Udham Singh Nagar. In the written statement filed by the defendant
as well as the insurer, an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the
Tribunal was raised. The Tribunal framed various issues including
the issue with regard to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The parties led
evidence on all issues. The Tribunal held that, the claimant resided
at Haldwani, District Nainital, when the accident had occurred,
but he was not residing there when he filed the claim application.
Though the Tribunal held that it had no territorial jurisdiction, it,
however, proceeded to decide all other issues against the claimant.
The claim application was ultimately dismissed for want of territorial
jurisdiction. The finding of the Tribunal was confirmed by the High
Court and the claimant’s appeal was dismissed. This Court, in the
appeal preferred by the claimant, referred to the decisions in Mantoo
Sarkar and Malti Sarkar (supra) and held that after coming to the
conclusion that the Tribunal had no territorial jurisdiction, no finding
on the other issues ought to have been given by the Tribunal. It
also referred to Section 21 of the Code and found that there was
no failure of justice insofar as the defendants were concerned as
they had contested the proceedings on merit. This Court set aside
the judgment of the High Court as well as the award passed by the
Tribunal. It restored the proceedings before the Tribunal and directed
adjudication of the proceedings on merits within a specified time.
14. In all the above cases, the objection based on territorial jurisdiction
was considered at the appellate stage, thus, attracting the rigors of
Section 21(1) of the Code that requires a party raising such objection
to also demonstrate failure of justice being caused due to exercise
of jurisdiction by a Tribunal having no territorial jurisdiction.
In the present case, the claimant himself impleaded the insurer as a
party to the claim application and it raised an objection to territorial
jurisdiction before the Tribunal itself. As the claim application of
10 2024 INSC 361
[2026] 10 S.C.R. 131
K Rashik v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another
the claimant awaits adjudication by the Tribunal on merits, the
requirements of Section 166(2) of the Act of 1988 have to be satisfied
and Section 21(1) of the Code is not attracted.
I. Consideration of the impugned order:
15. When the averments made in the claim application are examined in
this backdrop, it becomes clear that the claimant resides at Chittoor,
Andhra Pradesh, as pleaded. The accident occurred in District
Tirupati. There is no averment in the claim application stating that
the claimant carries on business elsewhere. Even the driver of the
offending vehicle is stated to reside in District Chittoor. It is, thus,
clear that no part of cause of action had arisen within the local limits
of District Chennai so as to clothe the Tribunal there with territorial
jurisdiction. The error committed by the Tribunal at Chennai in
holding that it had territorial jurisdiction was rightly corrected by
the High Court by setting aside that order. It is true that the Act of
1988 is a piece of legislation intended at redressing the hardships
flowing from a motor vehicle accident, amongst other objects. It
must be interpreted keeping these objectives in mind. However,
an interpretation which does not flow from the plain reading of
the statutory provisions despite a purposive interpretation cannot
be commended. An interpretation that does not find any statutory
support cannot be accepted and an interpretation that is in tune with
the plain language of the statute ought to be preferred.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 16.03.2026 passed by
the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court is upheld. The
direction to transmit the entire proceedings from the Tribunal at
Chennai to the Tribunal at Chittoor has been correctly issued. The
claim application preferred by the claimant shall be tried by the
Tribunal at Chittoor in accordance with law expeditiously. The Civil
Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no orders as to cost. Pending
Interlocutory Application is also disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain