Supreme Court: Insurer's office location doesn't grant Chennai Tribunal jurisdiction
The case involves a motor accident claim filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, where the appellant (claimant) filed the claim at the Chennai Tribunal, but the insurer objected to the territorial jurisdiction, arguing the accident occurred in Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, and the claimant resided in Chittoor. The Supreme Court addressed whether the place of the insurer's office confers territorial jurisdiction on the Chennai Tribunal.
Petitioner: K Rashik (claimant); Respondents: National Insurance Company Ltd. and another (insurer); Bench: Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
- The Supreme Court held that the place of the insurer's office does not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Chennai Tribunal for the motor accident claim.
- The Court upheld the High Court's order setting aside the Tribunal at Chennai's jurisdiction and transferring the case to the Tribunal at Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh.
- Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, provides that a claimant may file a claim either where the accident occurred, where the claimant resides or carries on business, or where the defendant resides, but not based on the insurer's office location.
Written from the document by AI, and checked against it. The original below is authoritative.
The original document
Document details
| Official title | Place Of Insurer's Office Doesn't Confer Territorial Jurisdiction For Motor Accident Claim : Supreme Court Explains S.166(2) MV Act |
| Source body | Supreme Court of India — orders & judgments |
| Reference number | — |
| Status | closed (order) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Closing date | — |
| Documents | 1 |