Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has held that the word “defendant” in Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not include the insurer, so a claimant cannot file before a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal merely because the insurer carries on business in that area. Upholding a Madras High Court order, it confirmed the transfer of a claim from the Chennai Tribunal to the Chittoor Tribunal in Andhra Pradesh.
The appellant was a pillion rider on a two-wheeler when a mini truck struck it on 25 October 2022 on a road in Y.V. Palem Mandal, District Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh. His pleaded address was in Chittoor District. He nonetheless filed his claim under Section 166(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai.
The insurer objected to territorial jurisdiction on 11 March 2025. The claimant replied that he lived about 150 km from Chennai and that the insurer's head office was in Chennai. The Tribunal rejected the objection on 11 July 2025, but on 16 March 2026 the Madras High Court, in a revision under Article 227, set aside that order and transferred the claim to the Chittoor Tribunal.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does a Claims Tribunal get territorial jurisdiction under Section 166(2) simply because the insurer carries on business within its limits?
Reading Section 166(2) Plainly
Writing for the Bench, Justice Chandurkar first held that an insurer impleaded as a party-respondent may raise every permissible objection, including territorial jurisdiction, relying on the three-judge decision in United India Insurance v. Shila Datta, (2011) 10 SC CK 0026. Section 166(2) gives the claimant four choices: the Tribunal for the area where the accident occurred, where the claimant resides, where the claimant carries on business, or where the defendant resides. Unlike Section 20 CPC, the last option omits “carries on business”, and the Court held that “the word ‘defendant’ used therein does not include an insurer”, noting that Section 168(1) separately requires notice to the insurer.
The Court distinguished Mantoo Sarkar, (2008) 12 SC CK 0149, Malati Sardar, (2016) 01 SC CK 0080 and Balveer Batra, where jurisdiction objections were raised at the appellate stage and the objector had to show failure of justice under Section 21(1) CPC. Here the objection was taken before the Tribunal at the outset, so Section 166(2) governed and Section 21(1) was not attracted. Since the claimant resided in Chittoor, the accident occurred in Tirupati and no part of the cause of action arose in Chennai, the Chennai Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. Although the Act is beneficial legislation, an interpretation “in tune with the plain language of the statute ought to be preferred.”
What the Court Actually Held
- An impleaded insurer can object to the Tribunal's territorial jurisdiction.
- “Defendant” in Section 166(2) does not include the insurer; its place of business does not confer jurisdiction.
- Where the objection is raised at the initial stage, Section 166(2) governs and Section 21(1) CPC does not apply.
- The High Court's transfer to the Chittoor Tribunal was upheld and the appeal dismissed, with a direction to decide the claim expeditiously.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It closes the practice of filing claims wherever the insurer has an office.
- It explains when the ‘no failure of justice’ test under Section 21 CPC applies and when it does not.
- It reminds Tribunals that beneficial legislation does not override plain statutory language.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Claimants' Counsel
- Plead specific facts showing the accident, the claimant's residence or business, or the driver/owner's residence within the Tribunal's limits.
- Do not rely on the insurer's head or branch office to found jurisdiction.
For Insurers
- Raise territorial objections at the threshold before the Tribunal; at the appellate stage prejudice must be shown.
- The right to object follows from being impleaded as a party-respondent.
Key Takeaways
- Section 166(2) offers four forums, not five.
- The insurer is not the ‘defendant’ for jurisdiction.
- Timing of the objection decides whether Section 21 CPC applies.
- The claim will proceed before the Chittoor Tribunal.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. It was transferred to the Chittoor Tribunal, which is to decide it expeditiously in accordance with law.
Yes, where it has been impleaded as a party-respondent, it may raise all permissible objections, including territorial jurisdiction.
Yes. Residence or place of business of the claimant remains a valid basis, but it must be pleaded and shown; here the pleaded address was in Chittoor.
Conclusion
The judgment gives a clear, text-based reading of Section 166(2) and narrows forum choice in motor accident claims to the four statutory options.
Practical takeaway: File the claim where the accident occurred, where the claimant lives or works, or where the driver or owner lives — never merely where the insurer does business.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com
Visit CourtKutchehry →