He Filed His Accident Claim Where the Insurer Had an Office: Supreme Court Says That Address Does Not Count

2 days ago

6 min read

Updated: 1 day ago

A two-wheeler rider in Tirupati filed his accident compensation claim in Chennai, the city where he lived and worked, and where the insurance company also happened to have an office. On paper that looked like a perfectly reasonable choice of venue. The Supreme Court has now told him, and every claimant tempted to reason the same way, that it was not.

The Accident, and the Venue Fight That Outlasted It

On 25 October 2022, K Rashik was riding his two-wheeler with his brother as pillion when a mini truck struck them near Yerravaripalem, District Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh. He filed a compensation claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Chennai and impleaded National Insurance Company Limited as a respondent.

The insurer objected to the Tribunal's territorial jurisdiction, pointing out that the accident, the claimant, and the driver were all connected to Andhra Pradesh, not Chennai. The Tribunal disagreed and held that since the insurer also carried on business at Chennai, it had jurisdiction. The insurer challenged that finding before the Madras High Court under Article 227, and a Single Judge held in March 2026 that the claim belonged before the Tribunal at Chittoor, since that is where the claimant resided and where the accident's local connection lay. The Chennai proceedings were ordered transferred. The claimant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Four Ways to File a Claim, and Why the Insurer's Office Is Not One of Them

Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act gives a claimant a genuinely wide choice of venue: the Tribunal where the accident occurred, the Tribunal where the claimant resides, the Tribunal where the claimant carries on business, or the Tribunal where the defendant resides. Four doors, not one.

The claimant's counsel argued that since he lived and worked in Chennai, and the insurer also had a Chennai office, filing there caused no prejudice to anyone. The Court read the provision more literally than that argument allowed. It noticed that the statute uses different language for claimants and defendants: a claimant may file where they reside or carry on business, but a defendant's business location is conspicuously left out, the provision speaks only of where the defendant resides. Compare that to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where a defendant's place of business does confer jurisdiction on an ordinary civil court. The Motor Vehicles Act deliberately does not say that.

"The place where the defendant carries on business has been specifically omitted while specifying territorial jurisdiction of a Tribunal."

Why an Optional Party Still Got to Fight the Venue

A claimant is not required to implead the insurer at all. It can simply be put on notice under Section 149(2), in which case its defences stay limited to what that section allows. But once a claimant chooses to implead the insurer as a full party-respondent, as happened here, the calculus changes completely. Relying on the three judge Bench ruling in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta, the Court held that a party-respondent insurer can raise every ground available to any other defendant, including a territorial jurisdiction objection, without first seeking the Tribunal's permission under Section 170.

In other words, the claimant's own decision to implead the insurer is what handed it the standing to make this exact argument. And the Court clarified something practitioners often assume incorrectly: the word "defendant" in the residence clause of Section 166(2) does not include the insurer at all. The principal contesting defendants remain the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

Timing Changes the Test: Section 166(2) Versus Section 21 CPC

This judgment draws a line that many MACT practitioners blur. If a jurisdiction objection is raised at the threshold, before the Tribunal has decided anything, it is tested purely against Section 166(2)'s criteria. But if the same objection surfaces only at the appellate stage or after an award has already been passed, Section 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure kicks in, and the objecting party must additionally prove that the lack of jurisdiction caused a failure of justice.

The Court distinguished three earlier rulings, Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Company Limited, and Balveer Batra v. The New India Assurance Company, precisely on this point. In each of those cases, the jurisdiction objection came late, at the appellate stage, and the party raising it could not show any prejudice or failure of justice, so the original proceedings were allowed to stand or were sent back on their own terms. Here, the insurer objected at the very first opportunity before the Tribunal itself, so none of that appellate-stage cushioning applied. Section 166(2) governed the objection directly, and on a plain reading of the claimant's own pleadings, Chennai had no connection to the case at all.

The Result: Back to Chittoor

The claim application itself named a Chittoor address for the claimant, recorded the accident as having occurred in Tirupati district, and gave no averment that the claimant carried on business anywhere else. Even the driver of the offending vehicle was stated to reside in Chittoor. On that record, the Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's conclusion and upheld the transfer. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the Chittoor Tribunal has been directed to decide the claim on merits, expeditiously.

What MACT Practitioners Should Actually Do Differently

Section 166(2) gives three clean venues tied to the claimant, plus the defendant's residence. The insurer's office is not a fifth option, even when the insurer is a party.
Choosing to implead the insurer as a party respondent, rather than merely noticing it under Section 149(2), hands it the full right to contest every issue, including venue.
Raise or resist a jurisdiction objection at the earliest possible stage. Waiting until appeal or after an award means clearing the much higher Section 21(1) CPC bar of proving failure of justice.
Draft the claim application's residence and cause-of-action averments with precision. The Court decided this case by reading those pleadings literally, not by weighing convenience.
A "beneficial legislation, so interpret it generously" argument only works when the interpretation has some support in the statute's actual text. Here it had none, and the Court said so plainly.

Insurance Litigation Rewards This Kind of Precision

Cases like this one turn on venue drafting, party impleadment strategy, and knowing exactly when a procedural window closes. That is precisely what ILW's Professional Diploma in Insurance Litigation, Dispute Resolution & Claims Strategy is built to train law students and practising lawyers on, with a sharp focus on MACT claims, insurer liability, and claims strategy that holds up on appeal.

For judgment breakdowns like this one, delivered as they are decided, join ILW's WhatsApp channel.

Read the full judgment: K Rashik v. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (2026 INSC 996) [PDF]

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Supreme Court decide in K Rashik v. National Insurance Company Ltd.?

The Court dismissed the claimant's appeal and upheld the Madras High Court's order transferring his motor accident compensation claim from the Tribunal at Chennai to the Tribunal at Chittoor, holding that the insurer's business presence in Chennai did not confer territorial jurisdiction there.

Can a motor accident claim be filed wherever the insurance company has an office?

No. Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 allows filing where the accident occurred, where the claimant resides, where the claimant carries on business, or where the defendant resides. Unlike Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it does not include the place where a defendant, including an insurer, carries on business.

Why could the insurer object to jurisdiction if it is not the actual vehicle owner or driver?

Because the claimant chose to implead the insurer as a full party-respondent rather than merely serving it notice under Section 149(2). Following United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta, an insurer impleaded as a party can raise any ground available to a defendant, including territorial jurisdiction, without needing the Tribunal's permission.

Does it matter when a territorial jurisdiction objection is raised?

Yes. An objection raised before the Tribunal at the threshold is tested directly against Section 166(2). An objection raised only at the appellate stage or after an award requires the objecting party to also prove failure of justice under Section 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a considerably higher bar.

Does the Motor Vehicles Act being beneficial legislation help a claimant win a jurisdiction dispute?

Not on its own. The Supreme Court held that a purposive, claimant-friendly reading cannot override an interpretation with no support in the statute's plain text, so the beneficial-legislation argument did not change the outcome here.

Keywords: K Rashik vs National Insurance Company, Section 166(2) Motor Vehicles Act territorial jurisdiction, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal jurisdiction case, MACT claim filing venue, insurer territorial jurisdiction objection, Section 21 CPC failure of justice, Insurance Litigation course for law students.