The Rajasthan High Court has made it clear that a claimant seeking compensation for motor accident can approach the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the issuing office of the offending vehicle’s insurer.
A single judge bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman referred to Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act which lays down that an application for compensation could be filed either with the claims tribunal which has jurisdiction over the area where accident occurred; or with the claims tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction where the claimant resides or carries on business; or with the claims tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the “defendant resides”.
In the case at hand, three women succumbed to injuries from a tractor which hit them at Hanumangarh in February 2020.
The insurance company (petitioner herein) contended that Hanumangarh was the place of accident and residence of the claimants (respondents herein), and Kolkata was the place where insurance company’s head office was situated. Hence, the Tribunal located in Jaipur did not have territorial jurisdiction over the respondents’ claims.
The High Court however upheld the order of the claims tribunal and said that the term “defendant resides” under the provision needs to be interpreted “expansively” to also include the place of business of the insurer. It observed that the “servicing/issuing” office of the insurance policy under which the claimants were claiming compensation, is in Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. In view of this, it cannot be said that the claimants have chosen Jaipur as an “unrelated place” for pursuing the claim, the court observed.
“The words of the aforesaid provision is very clear that claim petition may be filed before the Claim Tribunal which has jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred; the claimants reside or carry business or the defendant resides. The argument of the petitioner’s counsel that the registered office of the Insurance Company is in Kolkata and neither the accident occurred in Jaipur nor the claimants and defendant resides in Jaipur and therefore, the MACT (Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal), Jaipur does not have any jurisdiction to try the claim is absolutely frivolous. The phrase ‘defendant resides’ under Section 166 (2) of the M.V. Act, should be given an expansive interpretation and it covers the place of business of Insurer.”
The high court pointed to the pleadings and said that the petitioner insurance company had offices “all over the country” and no trouble or hardship would be caused to the company in defending its cases.
It relied on Malti Sardar v National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. (which was also relied by the tribunal) where the Supreme Court had said that there would be “no bar to present a claim petition before a tribunal in whose jurisdiction, the Insurance Company has its place of business”.
The high court further noted that the petitioner company did not raise the territorial jurisdictional question in the beginning but at the fag end of the trial, when it moved an application seeking rejection of the respondents claim petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
The court thereafter dismissed the company’s plea.
Title: Magma General Insurance Company Limited v Vinod Kumar & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 252
