Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Go Digit General Insurance Company Limited, filed a miscellaneous first appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the judgment and award dated 18.02.2022 passed by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi (the Tribunal) in MVC No.1471/2020. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.1,78,020/- with interest at 6% per annum to the claimant for injuries sustained in an alleged road traffic accident. The claimant alleged that on 04.04.2020, while preparing cow dung cakes by the side of Hingangaon Kumbhoj road, a motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-09/FK-5268, driven rashly and negligently, dashed against her, causing grievous injuries. She filed a claim petition before the Belagavi Tribunal. The insurer contested the claim on multiple grounds, including lack of territorial jurisdiction and false implication of the vehicle after a 24-day delay in complaint. The High Court framed two issues: whether the Belagavi court lacked territorial jurisdiction, and whether the insurer proved false implication. The insurer argued that the accident occurred in Kolhapur, Maharashtra; the claimant's residence was Kumbhoj, Kolhapur; the owner resided in Kumbhoj; and the insurer had its office only in Bengaluru, with no branch in Belagavi. Thus, none of the three conditions under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act for filing the petition in Belagavi were satisfied. The claimant contended that the jurisdictional objection was not raised in the appeal memo and that the delay in complaint was due to police inaction. The High Court examined Section 166(2) and the evidence: the claimant's Aadhaar card showed her address at Kumbhoj, and she admitted in cross-examination that her residence was in Kumbhoj. No evidence established that she resided or carried on business in Belagavi. The owner was from Hatkanangale, Kolhapur, and the insurer had no business presence in Belagavi. The court held that without territorial jurisdiction, the Tribunal's award was void ab initio and non-est. The objection to jurisdiction had been raised in the insurer's written statement and cross-examination existed, so the claimant's argument was rejected. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's award, and dismissed the claim petition for want of territorial jurisdiction. The second issue regarding false implication was not addressed as it became academic. The decision reinforces the strict territorial jurisdictional requirements under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 166(2) - Claim petition must be filed where accident occurred, claimant resides, or defendant resides - Accident occurred in Kolhapur, Maharashtra; claimant's residence in Kumbhoj, Kolhapur; owner in Kumbhoj, Kolhapur; insurer's office in Bengaluru - No party had residence or business in Belagavi - Tribunal Belagavi lacked territorial jurisdiction, award void ab initio - Held that appeal allowed and award set aside. (Paras 15-25).
Issue of Consideration
1. Whether the Court at Belagavi has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition? 2. Whether the appellant-insurer establishes that the offending vehicle is falsely implicated in the case?
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The judgment and award dated 18.02.2022 in MVC No.1471/2020 passed by VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi is set aside. Claim petition dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal determined by Section 166(2) of Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Claim petition must be filed at option of claimant in place of accident
- claimant's residence
- or defendant's residence
- Non-compliance renders judgment void ab initio.
