Place Of Insurer's Office Doesn't Confer Territorial Jurisdiction For Motor Accident Claim : Supreme Court Explains S.166(2) MV Act

In the present case, the claimant himself impleaded the insurer as a party to the claim application and it raised an objection to territorial jurisdiction before the Tribunal itself. As the claim application of the claimant awaits adjudication by the Tribunal on merits, the requirements of Section 166(2) of the Act of 1988 have to be satisfied and Section 21(1) of the Code is not attracted.

I. Consideration of the impugned order:

15. When the averments made in the claim application are examined in this backdrop, it becomes clear that the claimant resides at Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, as pleaded. The accident occurred in District Tirupati. There is no averment in the claim application stating that the claimant carries on business elsewhere. Even the driver of the offending vehicle is stated to reside in District Chittoor. It is, thus, clear that no part of cause of action had arisen within the local limits of District Chennai so as to clothe the Tribunal there with territorial jurisdiction. The error committed by the Tribunal at Chennai in holding that it had territorial jurisdiction was rightly corrected by the High Court by setting aside that order. It is true that the Act of 1988 is a piece of legislation intended at redressing the hardships flowing from a motor vehicle accident, amongst other objects. It must be interpreted keeping these objectives in mind. However, an interpretation which does not flow from the plain reading of the statutory provisions despite a purposive interpretation cannot be commended. An interpretation that does not find any statutory support cannot be accepted and an interpretation that is in tune with the plain language of the statute ought to be preferred.

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

Bombay HC: The doctor's admission that the victim's injuries could have been caused by falling on the road, combined with the existing enmity between the parties, constitutes grounds for acquittal

It is observed that the Trial Court had considered the answers given by P.W. 7 Dr. Joshi, during his cross-examination that the injuries sustained by P.W. 1 and 2 could have been possible by fall on the road and also fall on the hard and sharp object. 

This is more so in the light of the admitted position that there was a civil dispute between the three respondents on one side and P.W. 1 and 2 and their family members on the other side. This dispute was over the immovable landed property and which was going on for more than 7 to 8 years prior to the incident. It is also an admitted position that there was a complaint lodged by the respondents accused against the relatives of the First Informant. Pointing out this factual position and reasonable doubt was entertained by the Trial Court as to possibility of false involvement of the respondents in the offence charged. Considering the substantive evidence of P.W. 7 Dr. Joshi and mainly considering hostility shown of P.W. 5 as to alleged recovery from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and considering that the independent witness Appasaheb Waghmare is not examined, it must be said that the Trial Court had rightly came to the conclusion as to non establishment of the charge levelled against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 585 of 2004

Decided On: 27.10.2014

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Uttam Dashrath Tandale and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.R. Joshi, J.

Citation: 2015 ALLMR (Cri) 1925,MANU/MH/2847/2014

Print Page

Panchnama Under BNSS: The Document That Can Make or Break a Criminal Case

 I. Prefatory Observations

A panchnama is not evidence of guilt; it is a procedural safeguard designed to preserve the integrity of an investigative act. Courts have repeatedly clarified that the document does not, by its mere production, prove the facts recorded therein — those facts must be established through the sworn testimony of a panch witness or the investigating officer who personally perceived them.

This article examines the doctrinal foundations of the panchnama, its statutory reconstitution under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS"), and the evidentiary principles that govern its proof at trial, including the treatment of hostile panch witnesses and the narrow admissibility of custodial disclosure under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 ("BSA").

II. Nature and Juridical Character of Panchnama

Print Page

Bombay HC: Prosecution case becomes unbelievable if witnesses say that they did not lift the deceased and if they lifted, there were no blood stains on their clothes

Another reason why we are not inclined to accept testimony of these witnesses is that, though all of them state that, they were on the spot and they also accompanied the deceased up to the hospital, either they say that they did not lift the deceased and if they lifted, there were no blood stains on their clothes. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the following observations of Their Lordship of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of (Khima Vikamshi and others Vs. State of Gujarat), MANU/SC/0252/2003 : (2003) 9 S.C.C. 420.

"6...........While discussing this aspect of the case, the most important omission that we find in the prosecution case is the absence of any bloodstain either on the clothes or on the person of PWs 4 and 5. It is the prosecution case that PW 4 actually fell on the body of the victim to prevent further assault and later on she and PW 5 lifted the victim and put him in a bullock cart and travelled with the victim right through up to the time when the victim breathed his last. In such circumstances, we find it difficult that if really PWs 4 and 5 were at the place of the incident, as stated by the prosecution, then their clothes would not have been bloodstained. Failure on the part of the investigating agency to recover any such bloodstained clothes from PWs 4 and 5 creates serious doubts in our minds as to the presence of these witnesses at the time of the incident in question." {Para 32}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1144, 926, 934 to 942, 971, 1059 of 2012, 217, 814 to 817 of 2013 and Criminal Application Nos. 1012, 534 of 2018

Decided On: 10.07.2018

Janardan Mahadu Gondhali and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and Sarang V. Kotwal, JJ.

Author: B.R. Gavai, J.

Citation: 2019 ALLMR (Cri) 272,MANU/MH/3055/2018

Print Page