⚖️Case study based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in K Rashik v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.10706 of 2026, decided on 16.09.2026):
📌Factual Background
- On 25.10.2022, the appellant met with a road accident in District Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh while riding his two‑wheeler.
- He filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT, Chennai.
- The insurer objected, arguing that no part of the cause of action arose in Chennai.
🧩Legal Issues
- Whether the MACT, Chennai had territorial jurisdiction under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
- Whether the insurer could raise such an objection when impleaded as a party.
📑Contentions
- Claimant:
- Resided and worked in Chennai, hence Tribunal there had jurisdiction.
- Act of 1988 is beneficial legislation; interpretation should favour victims.
- Relied on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Alpana Jana (Calcutta HC).
- Insurer:
- Accident occurred in Tirupati; claimant’s address was in Chittoor, AP.
- No cause of action in Chennai.
- Tribunal at Chennai lacked jurisdiction.
📚Case Laws Discussed
- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta (2011 INSC 759) – insurer, if impleaded, can raise all grounds including jurisdiction.
- Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008 INSC 1453) – residence of claimant relevant for jurisdiction.
- Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2016 INSC 12) – objection to jurisdiction at appellate stage requires proof of prejudice.
- Balveer Batra v. New India Assurance Co. (2024 INSC 361) – Tribunal must not decide merits if lacking jurisdiction.
🔎Observations of SC
- Section 166(2) provides four options: accident location, claimant’s residence, claimant’s business, or defendant’s residence.
- “Defendant” does not include insurer; it refers to owner/driver.
- Claimant’s residence and accident location were both in Andhra Pradesh, not Chennai.
- Tribunal at Chennai erred in assuming jurisdiction; High Court rightly corrected.
📝Conclusion
- Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court’s order transferring proceedings to MACT, Chittoor.
- Civil Appeal dismissed.
💡Key Takeaways
- Jurisdiction under Section 166(2) is narrower than Section 20 CPC.
- Insurer, if impleaded, can raise jurisdictional objections.
- Beneficial legislation cannot override clear statutory language.
- Tribunal must first satisfy jurisdiction before proceeding on merits.
🔖 Hashtags
#SupremeCourt #MotorVehiclesAct #Jurisdiction #InsuranceLaw #CaseStudy #LegalInsights #IndiaLaw
📌 Official Copy of judgement 👇