Unknown vs National Insurance Company Limited And ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4746 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs National Insurance Company Limited And ... on 9 October, 2025

                                                       2025:UHC:8929



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
            Appeal From Order No. 369 of 2022
                       09th October, 2025

Rajpal Alias Rajpal Singh and Others               ........Appellants
                               Versus
National Insurance Company Limited and Others
                                     ......Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Mangha Ram Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Ashish Belwal, proxy counsel for Mr. Lalit Belwal, learned
counsel for respondent no.1/Insurance Company.
Mr. Bhupendra Prasad, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Alok Mahra, J.

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the

appellants/claimants against the judgment and order

dated 24.06.2022 passed by the learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, whereby

the claim petition filed by the appellants/claimants was

returned on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per record, are that

on 22.01.2020, a motor accident occurred in District

Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, involving a motorcycle bearing

registration no. UP12AR1710 allegedly driven rashly and

negligently by respondent no. 3. In the said accident, one

Ravi @ Ravikumar, a resident of Village Pilkhani, District

Muzaffarnagar sustained grievous injuries due to which

2025:UHC:8929 he died. Subsequently, the deceased's legal heirs (present

appellants/claimants) shifted to Srinagar, District Pauri

Garhwal, Uttarakhand, for employment and filed Motor

Accident Claim Petition No. 11 of 2020 before the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal. The

respondents, in their written statement, raised a

preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction,

contending that the accident occurred in Shamli and the

claimants were residents of Muzaffarnagar, hence the

Tribunal at Pauri Garhwal lacked jurisdiction. The

claimants contested the said objection by filing reply;

however, the learned Tribunal returned the claim petition

for want of territorial jurisdiction, leading to the present

appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants

would submit that the impugned order suffers from

manifest illegality and is contrary to the spirit of Section

166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act').

It is argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the

National Insurance Company Limited, i.e., respondent

no.1, has its business office at Srinagar, District Pauri

Garhwal, and therefore, the Tribunal at Pauri Garhwal

had the jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants

would further submit that Section 166(2) of the Act

2025:UHC:8929 clearly provides that a claim petition may, at the option of

the claimant, be filed before the Claims Tribunal within

whose local limits--(a) the accident occurred, or (b) the

claimant resides or carries on business, or (c) the

defendant resides or carries on business. It is further

contended that the law does not require the claimant's

residence to be permanent; even a temporary residence

for employment or livelihood is sufficient to establish

jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal rejected the claim on

a narrow and technical view, thereby defeating the

beneficial purpose of the Act.

5. Learned counsel further placed reliance upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malati

Sardar v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2016) 3

SCC 43, wherein it has been categorically held that a

claim petition may be filed at a place where the insurance

company has its business or branch office, even if the

accident or the claimant's permanent residence is

elsewhere. Paragraph 16 of the said judgment reads as

under:

"16. The provision in question, in the present case, is a benevolent provision for the victims of accidents of negligent driving. The provision for territorial jurisdiction has to be interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating remedies for the victims of accidents. Hyper technical approach in such matters can hardly be appreciated. There is no bar to a claim petition being filed at a place where the insurance company, which is the main contesting parties in such cases, has its business. In such cases, there is no prejudice to any party. There is no failure of justice. Moreover, in view of categorical decision of this Court in

2025:UHC:8929 Mantoo Sarkar (supra), contrary view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. The High Court failed to notice the provision of Section 21 CPC."

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-

Insurance Company supported the impugned order and

submitted that mere existence of an office of the

Insurance Company at Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal, does not

confer jurisdiction upon the Tribunal. It was further

contended that the claimants were not permanent

residents of Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal, and therefore, the

Tribunal rightly held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material available on record.

8. It is the case that the accident occurred in

District Shamli, Uttar Pradesh, while the claim petition

was filed before the Tribunal at Pauri Garhwal,

Uttarakhand. The Tribunal returned the petition on the

ground that, since the accident took place in Shamli and

the claimants were originally residents of District

Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, it lacked territorial

jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

9. For proper adjudication, it is relevant to refer to

Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which

reads as under:

166. Application for compensation.(1).........

(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims

2025:UHC:8929 Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed

10. The language of the provision clearly gives a

statutory choice to the claimant to file a claim petition at

any of the three places mentioned therewith. The word

"resides" used in the section does not imply permanent

residence. Furthermore, the jurisdiction can also be

invoked where the Insurance Company carries on

business or has its office.

11. A bare reading of the judgment passed in

Malati Sardar (supra) makes it clear that the provisions of

the Act should be interpreted liberally to achieve its main

purpose, providing quick and effective relief to accident

victims. The Court held that a strict, technical, or overly

formal approach should be avoided, especially when the

respondent, such as when the contesting respondent (i.e.

the insurer) operates within the territorial jurisdiction of

the Claims Tribunal.

12. In the present case, it is undisputed that the

National Insurance Company Limited maintains a branch

office at Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal, and that the

appellants/claimants were also residing in the same

district in connection with their employment. Therefore,

2025:UHC:8929 the Claims Tribunal at Pauri Garhwal had valid territorial

jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the claim

petition. Consequently, the dismissal of the claim petition

on the ground of lack of jurisdiction is legally

unsustainable.

13. In light of the above discussion and settled

legal principles, this Court finds that the learned

Tribunal erred in returning the claim petition on the

ground of lack of jurisdiction. The order dated

24.06.2022, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in M.A.C.P. No.

11 of 2020 (Rajpal @ Rajpal Singh and Another v.

National Insurance Company Ltd. and Another) is

therefore set aside.

14. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The learned

Tribunal is directed to restore the claim petition to its

original number and to adjudicate the same on merits,

expeditiously and in accordance with law.

(ALOK MAHRA, J.) 09.10.2025 Mamta

MAMTA RANI

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e430e f900bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e68911 ca8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2025.10.10 14:13:25 +05'30'