HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL vs National Insurance Company Limited and Others

appellants/claimants) shifted to Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand, for employment and filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 11 of 2020 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal. The respondents, their written statement, raised a preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction, contending that the accident occurred in Shamli and the claimants were residents of Muzaffarnagar, hence the Tribunal at Pauri Garhwal lacked jurisdiction. The claimants contested the said objection by filing reply; however, the learned Tribunal returned the claim petition for want of territorial jurisdiction, leading to the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the impugned order suffers from manifest illegality and is contrary to the spirit of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act’). It is argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the National Insurance Company Limited, i.e., respondent no.1, has its business office at Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal, and therefore, the Tribunal at Pauri Garhwal had the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would further submit that Section 166(2) of the Act 2 clearly provides that a claim petition may, at the option of the claimant, be filed before the Claims Tribunal within whose local limits—(a) the accident occurred, or (b) the claimant resides or carries on business, or (c) the defendant resides or carries on business. It is further contended that the law does not require the claimant’s residence to be permanent; even a temporary residence for employment or livelihood is sufficient to establish jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal rejected the claim on a narrow and technical view, thereby defeating the beneficial purpose of the Act.

5. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2016) 3 SCC 43, wherein it has been categorically held that a claim petition may be filed at a place where the insurance company has its business or branch office, even if the accident or the claimant’s permanent residence elsewhere. Paragraph 16 of the said judgment reads as under: “16. The provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. The provision territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hyper technical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated. There is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting parties in such cases, has its business. In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure of justice. Moreover, in view of categorical decision of this Court in 3 Mantoo Sarkar (supra), contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court failed to notice the provision of Section 21 CPC.”

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent– Insurance Company supported the impugned order and submitted that mere existence of an office of the Insurance Company at Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal, does not confer jurisdiction upon the Tribunal. It was further contended that the claimants were not permanent residents of Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal, and therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. It is the case that the accident occurred in District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, while the claim petition filed before the Tribunal at Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand. The Tribunal returned the petition on the ground that, since the accident took place in Shamli and the claimants were originally residents of District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

9. For proper adjudication, it is relevant to refer to Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as under:

166. Application for compensation.(1)……… (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims 4 Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims 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, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed

10. The language of the provision clearly gives a statutory choice to the claimant to file a claim petition at any of the three places mentioned therewith. The word “resides” used in the section does not imply permanent residence. Furthermore, the jurisdiction can also be invoked where the Insurance Company carries on business or has its office.

11. A bare reading of the judgment passed in Malati Sardar (supra) makes it clear that the provisions of the Act should be interpreted liberally to achieve its main purpose, providing quick and effective relief to accident victims. The Court held that a strict, technical, or overly formal approach should be avoided, especially when the respondent, such as when the contesting respondent (i.e. the insurer) operates within the territorial jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal.

12. In the present case, it is undisputed that the National Insurance Company Limited maintains a branch office at Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal, and that the appellants/claimants were also residing in the same district in connection with their employment. Therefore, 5 the Claims Tribunal at Pauri Garhwal had valid territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the claim petition. Consequently, the dismissal of the claim petition the ground of lack of jurisdiction legally unsustainable.

13. In light of the above discussion and settled legal principles, this Court finds that the learned Tribunal erred in returning the claim petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The order dated

24.06.2022, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in M.A.C.P. No. 11 of 2020 (Rajpal @ Rajpal Singh and Another v. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another) therefore set aside.

14. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The learned Tribunal is directed to restore the claim petition to its original number and to adjudicate the same on merits, expeditiously and in accordance with law. ( A LOK M A H RA , J.)

09.10.2025 Mam t a MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e430e f900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e68911 ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI 6