2026 INSC 996 Page 1 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10706 OF 2026

K RASHIK APPELLANT

VERSUS

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

LTD. AND ANOTHER RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

A. Facts:

1. The appellant

1 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 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

1

For short, ‘the claimant’

2

For short, ‘the Act of 1988’

3

For short, ‘the Tribunal’

4

For short, ‘the insurer’

Page 2 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

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

Page 3 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

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 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

5

F.M.A. 1454 of 2013 with C.A.N. 1858 of 2014

Page 4 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

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.

Page 5 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

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.

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

Page 6 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

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 position is clear in view of the decision of the

Page 7 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

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 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

6

2011 INSC 759

Page 8 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

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:

“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

Page 9 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

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

Page 10 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

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 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

7

For short, ‘the Code’

Page 11 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

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

Page 12 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

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 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

Page 13 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

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

8

2008 INSC 1453

Page 14 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

territorial jurisdiction 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

Page 15 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

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 Others

9, 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, 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

9

2016 INSC 12

Page 16 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

Tribunal was restored.

13. In Balveer Batra vs. The New India Assurance Company

and Another

10, 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

10

2024 INSC 361

Page 17 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

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 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.

Page 18 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

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.

Page 19 of 19

Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026

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.

…...………………………..J.

[UJJAL BHUYAN ]

.…..………………………..J.

[ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]

NEW DELHI,

SEPTEMBER 16, 2026.