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 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.