The Supreme Court has held that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot assume territorial jurisdiction merely because the insurance company being sued happens to have an office within its limits — clarifying a point that trips up claim applications with some regularity.
The case, K. Rashik v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another (2026 INSC 996), arose out of a road accident in Tirupati district, Andhra Pradesh, in October 2022. The claimant, who lives in Chittoor district, filed his compensation claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal at Chennai, on the reasoning that the insurer's office was located there. The insurer objected to jurisdiction; the Tribunal rejected that objection and held that its own presence at Chennai was sufficient. The Madras High Court disagreed in revision, holding that only the Tribunal at Chittoor — where the accident occurred — had jurisdiction, and transferred the case there. The claimant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Three choices of forum, and the insurer isn't one of them
A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 166(2) gives a claimant exactly three places to file a claim: where the accident occurred, where the claimant resides or carries on business, or where the vehicle's owner or driver — the actual defendant — resides. Unlike Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which also allows a suit where a defendant "carries on business," Section 166(2) deliberately omits that option. The Court held this omission to be intentional: an insurer, even where impleaded as a party to contest the claim, does not become "the defendant" for the purpose of deciding territorial jurisdiction under Section 166(2). Its branch office, however conveniently located, plays no role in the calculation.
When does a jurisdiction objection have to show actual harm?
The Court also drew a sharper line between objections raised at different stages of a case. Where an objection to territorial jurisdiction is raised before the Tribunal itself, at the threshold — as happened here — Section 166(2) governs directly, and nothing more needs to be shown. It is only when the objection surfaces later, at an appellate stage after an award has already been passed, that Section 21(1) of the Civil Procedure Code applies, additionally requiring the objecting party to show that the lack of jurisdiction actually caused a failure of justice. Earlier decisions relied on by the claimant — Mantoo Sarkar, Malati Sardar, and Balveer Batra — were distinguished on exactly this basis: each involved a jurisdiction challenge raised only after the award, not before it.
On the facts, since the claimant resided in Chittoor, the accident occurred in Tirupati district, and even the vehicle's driver resided in Chittoor, no part of the cause of action arose within the Chennai Tribunal's limits. The Madras High Court's order was upheld, and the claim will now proceed on merits before the Tribunal at Chittoor.
For MACT practitioners, the practical lesson is straightforward: jurisdiction in a claim application has to rest on the accident's location, the claimant's own residence or business, or where the owner or driver resides — not on the convenience of wherever the insurer can be served. Filing at a forum chosen only because the insurer has an office there risks the entire claim being redirected years later, as happened here.