Insurer is Not a "Defendant" for Conferring Jurisdiction under Section 166(2) of Motor vehicles Act - The phrase 'within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides' in Section 166(2) refers to the owner and/or driver of the offending vehicle, and does not encompass an insurer - Impleading an insurance company as a defendant is not mandatory under the Act - A claimant cannot invoke the territorial jurisdiction of a Tribunal solely on the ground that the insurance company maintains a branch or head office within that territory when the accident took place outside and neither the claimant nor the owner/driver resides or carries on business there.
Motor Accident Claims — Territorial Jurisdiction — Forum Convenience — Meaning of "Defendant Resides" vis-à-vis Insurance Company - Scope of Territorial Options under Section 166(2) - Under Section 166(2) of the Act of 1988, an application for compensation can be instituted at the option of the claimant before the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over: (i) the area where the accident occurred; (ii) the local limits where the claimant resides; (iii) the local limits where the claimant carries on business; or (iv) the local limits where the defendant resides - The legislature has consciously omitted the phrase "or carries on business" with respect to the defendant, which departs from the broader terminology used in Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 10706 of 2026
Decided On: 16.09.2026
K. Rashik Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Ujjal Bhuyan and A.S. Chandurkar, JJ.
Author: A.S. Chandurkar, J.
Citation: 2026 INSC 996,MANU/SC/1027/2026
Print Page
