Supreme Court: a motor accident claim can't be filed just because the insurer has an office there

The Supreme Court held that a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal does not get territorial jurisdiction merely because the insurer carries on business within its limits. The claimant, injured in an accident in District Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, and described in his own claim as residing in Chittoor district, filed his claim in Chennai. The Chennai Tribunal kept the case because the insurer had business there; the Madras High Court transferred it to Chittoor. Dismissing the claimant's appeal, the Court read Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It gives the claimant four options: where the accident occurred, where the claimant resides, where the claimant carries on business, or where the defendant resides. Parliament used 'resides or carries on business' for the claimant but only 'resides' for the defendant, unlike Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, so a defendant's place of business was deliberately left out. Further, the 'defendant' in Section 166(2) does not include an insurer, whose impleadment is optional. Once impleaded, however, an insurer may raise any ground, including territorial jurisdiction, following Shila Datta.

Because the objection was raised before the Tribunal itself, not on appeal, the prejudice test in Section 21 CPC did not apply. The Court added that a beneficial statute cannot be read against its plain words.