ANUPSING vs BALAJI
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
Reserved on : 22.07.2026
R
Pronounced on: 03.09.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200074 OF 2023 (MV-I)
BETWEEN:
1. ANUPSING
S/O PREMASING BAYAS
AGE 34 YEARS,
OCC-AUTOMOBILE ENGINEER,
R/O C/O BOSALE HOUSE,
KIRTI NAGAR, BEHIND NAIK HOSPITAL
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
…APPELLANT
Digitally
signed by
VIJAYA P
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
(BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. BALAJI
S/O MARUTI DHAWALE
AGE 48 YEARS
OCC-DRIVER/OWNER,
R/O PRASAD COLONY,
HOUSE NO. 78/534,
BARSI BYPASS ROAD,
USMANABAD,
TQ AND DIST-USMANABAD-413501.
- 2 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
2.
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INS. CO. LTD
SANGUM BUILDING,
S.S. FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
3. MR. SACHIN R PAWAR
AGE 46 YEARS,
OCC-OWNER OF CAR,
R/O S.R. NO. 178, KALATENAGAR,
BOUDH VIHAR WARD,
PUNE-411027.
4. THE BRANCH MANAGER
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
HANAMSHETTY BUILDING,
GURUKUL ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-585101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANURADHA M DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2(VC);
SRI SANJAY M JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
VIDE ORDER DATED 22.07.2026 NOTICE TO
R1 AND R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
14.01.2022 PASSED BY THE MACT XIII, VIJAYAPUR IN MVC NO.
794/2015 AND ALLOW THE SAID CLAIM PETITION IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING :
- 3 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar, learned counsel for
the appellant; Smt. Anuradha M. Desai, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 and Sri Sanjay M. Joshi, learned counsel for
respondent No.4.
2. This appeal is filed by the claimant, impugning the
judgment and award dated 14.01.2022 passed in M.V.C.
No.794/2015 on the file of the IV Additional District and
Sessions Judge and Member, MACT-XIII, Vijayapura (for short,
'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition came to be
dismissed.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the MV Act’), seeking
compensation for the accidental injuries suffered in the accident
that occurred on 17.06.2013 involving an Indica Car bearing
Reg. No. MH-14/CX-2078 and a lorry bearing Reg. No. MH-
09/L-0750, while traveling to Pune. It is pleaded that the
claimant was treated as an inpatient for a period of 20 days
- 4 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
and incurred an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical
treatment. The claimant was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month
prior to the accident.
3.1 Respondent No.1, the owner of the lorry, filed a written
statement denying the averments made in the petition.
However, it was contended that, if any compensation is
awarded, respondent No.2 would be liable to pay the same. It
was further contended that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car owned by
respondent No.3 and insured by respondent No.4. It was also
contended that the claimant is a resident of the State of
Maharashtra and, therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to
entertain the claim petition.
3.2 Respondent No.2, the insurer of the lorry, filed a written
statement denying the averments made in the petition and also
contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of
the driver of the car.
3.3 Respondent No.4, the insurer of the car, filed its
objections denying the averments made in the petition and
contended that the driver of the lorry did not possess a valid
and effective driving licence to drive the class of vehicle in
- 5 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
question as on the date of the accident. It was also contended
that the claimant is a resident of Solapur and has neither a
temporary nor permanent residence at Vijayapura. It was
submitted that respondent Nos.1 and 3 are residents of
Maharashtra, being the owners of both the vehicles, and that
the complaint was lodged within the jurisdiction of Foujdar
Chavadi Police Station, Solapur, Maharashtra. It was further
contended that the policy was issued in the State of
Maharashtra and, therefore, there was no jurisdiction to
maintain the petition before the Tribunal at Vijayapura.
3.4 The Tribunal, upon considering the contentions urged by
the parties, held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the
petition in view of Section 166 of the MV Act and dismissed the
petition for want of jurisdiction.
SUBMISSIONS :
4. Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant-claimant submits that, in view of sub-section
(2) of Section 166 of the MV Act, the claim petition can be filed
before the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the place
where the claimant resides or carries on business, where the
accident occurred, or where the defendant resides. It is
- 6 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
contended that respondent No.2, being the insurer of the lorry,
carries on business within the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Vijayapura, and, therefore, the claim petition
was maintainable before the Tribunal.
4.1 It is further submitted that, having regard to the
beneficial and welfare-oriented object of the MV Act, a claim
petition ought not to be rejected on a technical ground relating
to territorial jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submits that,
even if this Court were to hold that the Tribunal at Vijayapura
did not have territorial jurisdiction, at this length of time, the
claim petition should not to be rejected, as the same would
result in a failure of justice.
4.2 In support of his submissions, learned counsel places
reliance on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in
(i) Malati Sardar vs. National Insurance Company
Limited and others , (2016) 3 SCC 43 ;
(ii) Mantoo Sarkar vs. Oriental Insurance Company
Limited and others , (2009) 2 SCC 244 ; and
(iii) Balveer Batra vs. The New India Assurance
Company and others , 2024 INSC 361 .
- 7 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance
Companies jointly submit that a claim petition under Section
166 of the MV Act can be maintained, at the option of the
claimant, before the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over
the area in which the accident occurred, or within whose
jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business, or
within whose local limits the defendant resides. It is submitted
that neither did the accident occur nor does the claimant reside
or carry on business, nor does the defendant reside within the
jurisdiction of the MACT, Vijayapura. It is further submitted that
the accident occurred in the State of Maharashtra; the claimant
is a resident of the State of Maharashtra; the owners of both
the vehicles are residents of the State of Maharashtra; and
both the Insurance Companies have their places of business
within the State of Maharashtra. In that view of the matter,
none of the conditions contemplated under sub-section (2) of
Section 166 of MV Act confers jurisdiction upon the Tribunal at
Vijayapura. It is submitted that the judgments relied upon by
the claimant are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
6. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the appeal papers.
- 8 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
ANALYSIS :
7. The question that arises for consideration of this Court is:
“Whether, on the facts and circumstances of
the case, the claim petition is maintainable before
the MACT, Vijayapura, or before any Claims
Tribunal within the State of Karnataka?”
The said question is answered in the ‘negative’ for the
following reasons.
7.1 Before proceeding to examine the facts of the present
case, it is necessary to consider the scope and ambit of Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 166 reads as
under:
“166. Application for compensation.- (1) An
application for compensation arising out of an accident
of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165
may be made--
(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or
(b) by the owner of the property; or
(c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all
or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or
(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured
or all or any of the legal representatives of the
deceased, as the case may be:
Provided that where all the legal representatives of the
deceased have not joined in any such application for
compensation, the application shall be made on behalf
of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of
- 9 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
the deceased and the legal representatives who have
not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the
application.
[Provided further that where a person accepts
compensation under section 164 in accordance with the
procedure provided under section 149, his claims
petition before the Claims Tribunal shall lapse.]
[(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be
made, at the option of the claimant, either to the
Claims 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:
[ .]] *
[(3) No application for compensation shall be
entertained unless it is made within six months of the
occurrence of the accident.]
[Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain an
application for compensation after the expiry of the
said period of six months from the date of occurrence
of the accident, but within a further period not
exceeding twelve months, if it is satisfied that the
applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from
making an application within such period.]
[(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of
accidents forwarded to it under [section 159] as an
application for compensation under this Act.]
[(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other
law for the time being in force, the right of a person to
claim compensation for injury in an accident shall,
upon the death of the person injured, survive to his
legal representatives, irrespective of whether the cause
of death is relatable to or had any nexus with the
injury or not.] “
- 10 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
7.1.1 Section 166(1) of the MV Act enables a person who has
sustained an injury, the owner of the property, or the legal
representatives of a deceased person to file an application
seeking compensation. Sub-section (2) determines the
territorial jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal.
7.1.2 The jurisdiction is available at the option of the
claimant, subject, however, to the conditions stipulated under
sub-section (2). On a literal interpretation of sub-section (2), a
claim petition can be maintained before the Claims Tribunal
having jurisdiction over:
(i) The area in which the accident occurred;
(ii) The area within whose local limits the claimant
resides;
(iii) The area within whose local limits the claimant
carries on business; or
(iv) The area within whose local limits the defendant
resides.
7.1.3 Thus, for maintaining a claim petition before a particular
Claims Tribunal, the jurisdiction of that Tribunal must satisfy at
least one of the conditions stipulated under sub-section (2) of
Section 166 of the MV Act, namely, the place of the accident,
- 11 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
the place of residence of the claimant, the place where the
claimant carries on business, or the place where the defendant
resides.
7.2 There can be no ambiguity insofar as determining the
place of the accident, the place of business, and the place of
residence of the claimant is concerned. The principal emphasis
in the submissions advanced before this Court, however, is on
the expression “within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
defendant resides”.
7.2.1 The primary liability to pay compensation in case of
claim in view of motor vehicle accident is that of the owner of
the offending vehicle. However, when a valid and enforceable
insurance policy is in force, the insurer shall be liable to
indemnify the liability of the insured, subject to the terms and
conditions of the policy. In this context, the defendant would
primarily be the owner of the vehicle, and upon establishing the
existence of a valid insurance policy, the liability to indemnify
the compensation is shifted to the insurer. In that context, the
place of residence of the owner of the offending vehicle is one
of the criteria for determining the jurisdiction of the Claims
Tribunal.
- 12 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
7.2.2 It is held that the place of business of the insurer is one
of the criteria for determining the jurisdiction of the Claims
Tribunal. However, the same cannot be read in isolation. The
place of business of the insurer has to necessarily be
considered in the context of the place where the defendant,
that is, the owner of the offending vehicle, resides. If the place
of the accident, the place of residence or business of the
claimant/victim, and the place of residence of the owner of the
insured vehicle are all within one State, merely because the
insurance company carries on business at a place outside that
State, it cannot be interpreted as conferring jurisdiction upon a
Tribunal outside that State, unless the insurance company has
no place of business within the State where the accident has
taken place or where the claimant resides or carries on
business, and the owner of the vehicle resides or carries on
business. Under the guise of giving a liberal interpretation to a
benevolent provision, the jurisdiction of a Tribunal in another
State cannot be permitted, based on a presumed cause of
action.
7.2.3 Much reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mantoo Sarkar ( supra ) to
contend that the claim petition can be filed in any State or at
- 13 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
any place. The said contention is not in conformity with the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mantoo Sarkar
( supra ).
7.2.4 The facts in Mantoo Sarkar ( supra ) are that the
claimant met with an accident in the State of Uttar Pradesh,
involving a vehicle registered at Faridabad in the State of
Haryana. The claimant was gainfully employed for his livelihood
in the State of Uttaranchal. The claimant filed a petition seeking
compensation before the MACT in the State of Uttaranchal on
the ground that the insurer had a branch office therein. The
insurer objected to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the State
of Uttaranchal.
7.2.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the residence of
the claimant determines the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The
residence of a person would depend upon the facts and
circumstances in each case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
considered that the claimant was a resident of the State of
Uttar Pradesh, but had been working in Nainital District and, for
that reason, was considered to be a resident of Nainital in the
State of Uttaranchal. In that context, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under
- 14 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, held that the Tribunal in
Uttaranchal had jurisdiction. At the cost of repetition, the
claimant was gainfully employed within the State of
Uttaranchal.
7.2.6 Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Malati Sardar ( supra ) to
advance an identical proposition. The facts of the said case are
that the offending vehicle was registered in the State of West
Bengal and the accident had occurred within the State of West
Bengal. The place of the accident was Hooghly, where the
claimant resided. The owner of the insured vehicle also resided
at Hooghly. The objection was with regard to the territorial
jurisdiction of the Tribunal at Kolkata. As all the circumstances
contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 166 of the MV
Act were within the State of West Bengal, the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal at Kolkata came to be upheld by adopting a liberal
interpretation of the benevolent enactment.
7.2.7 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while holding that a claim
petition filed at the place where the insurance company, which
is the main contesting party, has its place of business is
maintainable, observed in the facts and circumstances of the
- 15 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
case that there is no prejudice to any party. The prejudice that
is likely to be caused to any of the parties to the claim petition
is a relevant consideration for the Court. Moreover, there
cannot be any prejudice to the other parties when all the
circumstances contemplated under Section 166(2) of the MV
Act are within the same State. However, prejudice is bound to
arise when none of the situations contemplated under Section
166(2) of the MV Act arises in the State where the claim
petition is presented. The likely prejudice to the parties is dealt
with in the subsequent part of this judgment.
7.2.8 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Balveer
Batra ( supra ), dealt with the territorial jurisdiction of the
Tribunal within the State of Uttarakhand. However, in the
present case, the issue is in a different context. Before
proceeding to examine the facts of the present case, it is
necessary to examine the scope of Section 166(2) of the MV
Act, the prejudice likely to be caused to the parties, and the
aspect of forum inconvenience.
LANGUAGE BARRIER:
7.3 This Court has come across claim petitions filed before
the Tribunals within the State of Karnataka, where the
- 16 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
claimants and the owners of the insured/offending vehicles are
from other States. The place of the accident is also outside the
State of Karnataka. The said petitions are filed based on the
place of business of the insurance company. It is not the case
of the claimants that there is no office of the insurance
company within the State where the accident has occurred, the
claimant resides or carries on business or where the defendant
resides.
7.3.1 For the sake of illustration, this Court may consider a
case where the accident occurs within the State of Maharashtra
involving a vehicle registered in Maharashtra, the claimant
resides or carries on his livelihood in the State of Maharashtra,
and the defendant also resides or carries on business therein.
In such a case, the complaint would ordinarily be lodged before
the jurisdictional police, with the complaint and FIR being
recorded in the vernacular language. The charge sheet,
together with the documents relied upon and the statements of
the charge-sheeted witnesses, would likewise be in the
vernacular language. The claimant would have received
treatment at hospitals within the State of Maharashtra, and the
treating doctor would also be a resident or practitioner therein.
In such circumstances, where substantial reliance is placed
- 17 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
upon the charge sheet to establish negligence, the evidentiary
material would predominantly be in the vernacular language of
the State of Maharashtra.
7.3.2 Going by the above illustration, if a claim petition is filed
in the State of Karnataka, it would become necessary for the
owner or insurer has to examine the Investigating Officer. The
summons issued to the Investigating Officer may not be served
and, even if served, the officer may choose not to appear
before the Tribunal in the State of Karnataka to give evidence.
The vernacular documents may not be understandable to the
counsels appearing before the Tribunal, requiring assistance
from other counsel familiar with the vernacular language, which
is Marathi.
7.3.3 The claimant gives evidence in Marathi, which the Court
could not be in a position to understand and would, therefore,
be entirely dependent on the translator. While recording the
translated evidence, several disputes have arisen regarding the
correctness of the translation. In such a scenario, the Tribunal
may have to seek the assistance of a certified translator. If
such assistance is obtained, it would further increase the delay
and cost of litigation for the claimants.
- 18 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
7.3.4 The owner of the insured/offending vehicle, who has the
primary liability to pay the compensation, invariably, in the
majority of cases, despite being served with summons, remains
absent before the Court and is placed ex - parte . Even when a
specific contention regarding violation of the policy conditions,
either with regard to the permit or the driving licence, is taken
by the insurer, the same remains unanswered, and the notices
issued by the insurer calling upon the owner to produce the
driving licence remain unanswered. The Court summons issued
to the owner of the insured/offending vehicle to produce the
driving licence and permit also remain unresponsive. In such
circumstances, the Tribunal, in view of the subsisting insurance
policy, directs payment of compensation; however, it fails to
order pay and recovery due to the non-participation of the
owner of the insured/offending vehicle before the Tribunal.
7.3.5 If it is a case of injuries, as the treating doctors are from
another State, they are unwilling to give evidence before the
Court, which would have assisted the Tribunal in assessing the
disability. In the majority of cases, the medical records are
neither produced nor made available by the claimants, and only
the discharge summary is furnished. The discharge summary,
by itself, would be of little assistance in assessing fair
- 19 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
compensation, as the Tribunal would be handicapped to
properly assess the disability without the evidence of the
treating doctor. Consequently, the claimants are compelled to
examine a non-treating doctor who has issued a disability
certificate. Such non-treating doctor issues a disability
certificate after a few years from the date of treatment, either
on physical assessment or based on the discharge summary.
The evidence of a non-treating doctor, in many cases, is found
to be a mechanical evaluation, which cannot be relied upon by
the Court.
7.3.6 The assessment of disability by a non-treating doctor
may result in inaccurate and unreliable evidence. In cases
where disability is assessed in the absence of medical records,
by examining the claimant at the time of giving evidence, the
time gap would invariably be more than one or two years. Such
an assessment may either result in a whimsical assessment of
disability on the higher side or, in some cases, on the lower
side, thereby causing prejudice to either of the parties and
defeating the very purpose of the benevolent enactment and
the requirement of awarding just compensation.
- 20 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
7.3.7 This Court has also noticed instances where one doctor
has assessed disability in all fields of medicine. In the majority
of cases, it is the same doctor who gives medical evidence
before the Tribunal within that jurisdiction. The doctor has
assessed disability without the requisite qualification. To state a
few instances, a general surgeon has assessed dental disability,
neurological disability, radiological disability, orthopaedic
disability, ENT disability and so on. When the competence of
the doctor to assess such disabilities is questioned, the ready
answer is that the treating doctor, being from another State, is
unwilling to appear before the Tribunal. This exercise denies
fair compensation to the claimant or results in an unreasonable
award of compensation in favour of the claimant.
7.3.8 In cases where the assessment of disability by the
doctor is found to be shocking or unreliable, the injured
persons are referred for assessment of disability by the Medical
Boards of the State Institutes of Medical Sciences present in
the District. This would again impose an additional financial
burden on the claimants towards loss of earnings, conveyance,
and other incidental expenses incurred for undergoing such
assessment of disability.
- 21 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
7.3.9 Beyond all these difficulties in undertaking this exercise,
the adjudication of claim petitions is delayed and timely
compensation is not awarded. This is the prejudice caused to
both parties at the stage of the Tribunal. However, when the
matter is appealed by the claimant seeking enhancement, by
the insurer disputing liability, or by the owner on any other
ground, the circumstance would not be any different, as the
High Court has to assess the correctness and reasonableness of
the compensation on the basis of the evidence on record,
which, in some cases, is not reliable. Some of the issues raised
before the Court cannot be ignored by merely applying the
principles of liberal interpretation of a benevolent enactment.
7.3.10 In majority of the cases, it is alleged by both parties
that the translations or interpretation of documents in the
vernacular language of the other State are incorrect. Sufficient
time would be consumed in adjudicating such issues, thereby
further delaying the award of compensation. If translation by a
certified translator is insisted upon, the cost of such translation
may not be affordable, which would further prejudice the
parties.
- 22 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
7.3.11 The complaints are filed by furnishing an address within
the territorial jurisdiction of the Tribunal, based on a rental
agreement executed for this very purpose. When the insurer
files an appeal, in almost all such cases, service of Court notice
remains unserved. The insurance companies are then
compelled to resort to substituted service by way of paper
publication, which is circulated within the area of the address
furnished in the claim petition, defeating the very purpose of
such service, as the claimants are not residents of that place.
In such a situation, the Court may be compelled to hold the
service sufficient and proceed to place the claimants ex parte.
This would again result in prejudice to the interests of the
claimants.
7.4 The important question that now arises is: why are such
petitions, which have cause of action outside the State of
Karnataka, presented before the Tribunals in the State of
Karnataka?
COURT FEE AND NOTIONAL INCOME/MINIMUM WAGES:
7.5 It is not the case that there are no Tribunals, or that
there are no offices of the insurance companies within the
jurisdiction and in the concerned State. On putting forth this
- 23 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
question, certain reasons are given which prima facie appears
to intact forum shopping.
7.5.1 For example, the notional income prescribed for the
purpose of quantifying compensation in motor vehicle accident
cases varies from State to State. The minimum wages notified
from one State to another also vary. Each Tribunal is governed
by the Court fee prescribed under the respective State
enactment.
7.5.2 By way of comparison, between the State of Karnataka
and the State of Maharashtra, in the State of Karnataka, the
Court fee for filing a claim petition and an appeal before the
High Court is prescribed under Rule 233 of the Karnataka Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989, whereas, in the State of Maharashtra, the
Court fee is based on the quantum of compensation claimed as
prescribed under Rule 257 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989. The Court fee is thus linked to the quantum of
compensation. The minimum wages notified in the States of
Karnataka and Maharashtra also vary. Similarly, the notional
income prescribed by the State Legal Services Authority in
Karnataka and Maharashtra varies.
- 24 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
7.5.3 The notional income or minimum wages is a very
important factor, as it is a settled principle that, in the absence
of proof of income, the compensation is to be determined on
the basis of the minimum wages or notional income prevailing
in the State where the claimant ordinarily resides or was
earning at the time of the accident.
7.5.4 The comparison of the above aspects is tabulated for
convenience as under:
COURT FEE:
Limits Karnataka Maharashtra
Not exceeding
Rs.10/- Rs.10/-
Rs.5,000/-
Exceeding Rs.5,000/-
Rs.10/- Rs.10.00 plus 0.25 percent of the
but not exceeding
amount by which the claim
Rs.50,000/-
exceeds Rs.5,000/-
Exceeding Rs.50,000/-
Rs.10/- Rs.122.50 plus 0.50 percent of the
but not exceeding
amount by which the claim
Rs.1,00,000/-
exceeds Rs.50,000/-
Rs.10/- Rs.372.50 plus one percent of the
Exceeding
Rs.1,00,000/-
amount by which the amount of
claim exceeds Rs. One lakh,
subject to the maximum of
Rs.15,000/-
- 25 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
NOTIONAL INCOME:
7.5.5 If the notional income and the minimum wages
prescribed for the year 2026 by the States of Karnataka and
Maharashtra are considered, the State of Karnataka has
consistently followed the chart prepared by the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority and has prescribed minimum wages
for the period from 01.07.2026 to 31.12.2026. Since, in most
of the cross-border claim petitions, the claimants claim their
livelihood from agricultural activities, the same is taken for
comparison.
7.5.6 The Karnataka State Legal Services Authority has
prescribed Rs.18,250/- as the notional monthly income in the
State of Karnataka for the purpose of computation of
compensation in motor vehicle accident cases. The same would
amount to an annual income of Rs.2,19,000/-. The State of
Maharashtra has prescribed zone-wise minimum wages for
persons engaged in agricultural occupations. The minimum
wage prescribed for Zone I, which is the highest among the
zones, is Rs.9,126/- per month, which would amount to
Rs.1,09,512/- per annum.
- 26 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
7.5.7 If the difference between the annual incomes prescribed
by the respective States is taken into consideration, the
notional income prescribed by the State of Karnataka is
Rs.1,00,000/- more than the minimum wages prescribed by the
State of Maharashtra. This disparity in the income prescribed
by the respective States is one of the factors contributing to the
filing of claim petitions in the State of Karnataka, without
meeting the jurisdictional requirements.
7.5.8 Even if some liberal interpretation is given to entertain
claim petitions when none of the situations contemplated under
Section 166(2) of the MV Act are available, it would result in a
huge pendency of cases before some of the Tribunals in the
border districts. This would lead to adjudication of claim
petitions which have no connection with the territorial
jurisdiction of such Tribunals, thereby defeating the very
purpose of the benevolent enactment and the objective of
ensuring timely compensation. For these reasons, the
adjudication of such matters is consuming years before the
Tribunal as well as before this Court. This issue was considered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shishu Pal @
Shish Ram & Ors. v. Surjeet & Ors. (2026 INSC 634),
- 27 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
where it deprecated the delay in adjudicating the motor
vehicles accident claim petitions.
REASONING
7.6 The jurisdiction of the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction
the insurer has its place of business is held to be sufficient to
maintain a claim petition in Malati Sardar ( supra ). Such liberal
interpretation, however, cannot be extended to a scenario
where all the circumstances contemplated under Section 166(2)
of MV Act are within one State and merely because the
insurance company has an office of business in another State,
the claim petition cannot be held to be maintainable before a
Tribunal in such other State based solely on the place of
business of the insurance company. It is not a case where the
insurer has no place of business within the State where all the
circumstances contemplated under Section 166(2) of MV Act
exist or have arisen. When all the circumstances contemplated
under Section 166(2) of MV Act are within one State, merely
because the insurer has an office of business in another State,
the claim petition cannot be held to be maintainable in that
State.
- 28 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
7.6.1 The judgments cited above answer the issue regarding
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal within the State or where one of
the circumstances contemplated under Section 166(2) of MV
Act has arisen in that State. When none of the circumstances
contemplated under Section 166(2) of MV Act has arisen within
the State of Karnataka, merely based on the place of business
of the insurer, a Tribunal in the State of Karnataka cannot
assume jurisdiction.
7.6.2 The compensation is determined based on the income of
the injured claimant or the deceased. When proof of income is
not available, the minimum wages notified by the concerned
State for that place, or the notional income, are considered. In
the given illustration, if the injured claimant or deceased was
working in the State of Maharashtra and the claim petition is
filed before a Tribunal in the State of Karnataka, the minimum
wages or notional income applicable in Karnataka cannot be
applied, as Karnataka is not the place where the loss of income
has arisen. The notional income or minimum wages applicable
in Maharashtra are required to be applied. If such an exercise is
not undertaken, the very concept of compensation for loss of
income would become meaningless or result in an abuse of the
process of law. It may result in either unreasonable
- 29 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
compensation being awarded to the claimant or an
unreasonable burden being imposed on the owner of the
insured/offending vehicle or the insurance company, as the
case may be. In fact, KSLSA has notified different notional
income for claim petitions filed within the jurisdiction of the
Principle Bench at Bengaluru and the Benches at Dharwad and
Kalaburagi based on earning capacity and living standards.
7.6.3 Where claim petitions are filed before Tribunals in
Karnataka, despite all the circumstances contemplated under
Section 166(2) of MV Act having arisen in Maharashtra, the
reason for such filing can be inferred on more than one ground.
Firstly, to avoid payment of court fee; and secondly, to take
advantage of the higher minimum wages or notional income
prescribed in the State of Karnataka, which are taken as the
basis for computation of compensation. Such an approach
would not only be contrary to the provisions of the Act, but
would also defeat the purpose and object of the benevolent
enactment.
7.6.4 In cases where the situations contemplated under
Section 166(2) of MV Act are not met, normally, the remedy
would be to dismiss the claim petition or appeal and direct the
- 30 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
claimant to present the claim petition before the Tribunal where
the situations contemplated under Section 166(2) of MV Act
arise or exist. The compensation is not only required to be just;
it should also be timely so as to achieve the object of the
enactment.
7.6.5 However, in cases where awards have already been
passed by the Tribunal, and where appeals are pending seeking
enhancement by the claimant, or disputing liability by the
owner or the insurer, if it is held that the Tribunal had no
jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and are rejected, as
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Mantoo Sarkar ( supra ) and Malati Sardar ( supra ), it would
result in a failure of justice. Considering the likely hardship that
may be caused to the claimant and to ensure that the object of
the Act is not defeated, this Court can mitigate such hardship
by not rejecting adjudicated claim petitions on the ground of
jurisdiction.
7.6.6 The alternative before this Court is to assess the income
based on the minimum wages or notional income applicable in
the place where the claimant or deceased was earning at the
time of the accident. This would assist the claimants in
- 31 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
pursuing their pending appeals as well as pending claim
petitions and also ensure that no prejudice is caused to the
other side by imposing a higher burden.
7.6.7 The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of The
Manager vs. Banda Saraswathi and others in MFA
No.5097/2023 , dated 07.04.2026 , dealing with an identical
issue where the question of maintainability of the claim petition
was raised, considered that the deceased was a resident of the
State of Andhra Pradesh, the claimants were residents of
Andhra Pradesh, the accident occurred within the State of
Andhra Pradesh, and the owner of the offending vehicle was
also a resident of Andhra Pradesh.
7.6.8 In the said case, despite the aforesaid circumstances,
the claim petition was filed before a Tribunal within the State of
Karnataka, wherein the notional income prescribed or adopted
in the two States had a substantial variation, with the notional
income in Karnataka being on the higher side. The Division
Bench held that the notional income considered by the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh was to be taken as the basis for
determining compensation. Such an exercise was undertaken
to ensure that there was no failure of justice.
- 32 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
7.6.9 A similar principle can be applied to all pending claim
petitions and appeals from the date of this judgment. This
would avoid a failure of justice and ensure that unreasonable
compensation is not awarded to the claimant, while equally
ensuring that an unreasonable liability is not imposed on the
owner of the insured/offending vehicle or the insurance
company.
7.6.10 However, the same principle cannot be applied to
future claim petitions. If the same principle is applied, and such
claim petitions are entertained, the various difficulties,
prejudice, unreasonableness, and arbitrariness referred to
above would still remain. The Tribunal, while entertaining a
claim petition, has to necessarily frame an issue at the
threshold regarding jurisdiction, in the light of the observations
made above and in the context of Section 166(2) of MV Act. If
it is found that there is want of jurisdiction, the claim petition
shall be returned or rejected at the threshold. The claim
petitions are to be entertained by the jurisdictional Tribunal
when the situations contemplated under Section 166(2) of the
MV Act exist.
- 33 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
7.6.11 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Arif Azim Co. Ltd. v.
Micromax Informatics FZE, (2025) 9 SCC 750 , considered
the doctrine of forum non conveniens . The relevant paragraphs
are extracted hereunder for reference.
"(iv) Doctrine of forum non conveniens:
71. The aforesaid may be looked at from one
another angle, through the doctrine of forum non
conveniens. The term “forum non conveniens” is a
Latin term which means “an inconvenient forum” and
provides that a court which otherwise might have
jurisdiction may decline jurisdiction over a case if
there is a more appropriate forum available to the
parties, and is typically invoked in respect of cross-
border subject-matters that are amenable to multiple
concurrent jurisdictions. Depending upon the nature of
the dispute, the subject-matter involves and the
parties thereto, the courts by invoking this doctrine
proceed to determine which one of the available
forums may be more convenient and fair for
entertaining and adjudicating the matter.
72. In order to apply the doctrine of forum non
conveniens an adequate alternative forum must exist
where the subject-matter may be espoused. The
alternative forum must be capable of providing a fair
and adequate remedy for the dispute, however this
does not mean that the alternative forum must offer
identical remedies, and this doctrine may be applied as
long as the other alternative forum offers a reasonably
fair process of remedy and is more convenient or
appropriate in the opinion of the court invoking the
doctrine. Courts in doing so must weigh the relative
importance of private and public interest factors. In
doing so, they exercise a high level of discretion and
often issue rulings that are fact specific.
xxx
75. What can be discerned from the above is that
where more than one forum is available, it is the
- 34 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
discretion of the court to entertain the matter by
examining as to which is the appropriate forum more
suited for the interests of all the parties and the ends
of justice. Ordinarily, the burden to prove that the
court or forum in seisin of the matter is an
inconvenient forum or the proceedings therein are
oppressive or vexatious lies on the party contending
the same, yet the choice of forum by the other party is
not decisive, and that it is for the court to determine
whether the proceedings before it might be an
inconvenience to the interests of the parties or less
appropriate for the subject-matter in question."
7.6.12 Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reiterating the
aforesaid principle in Baksish Ahmad v. Union of India and
Another, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1098 , held as follows:
"29. What follows from the above passages is that
the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies only
where multiple fora are available to a litigant for
seeking the same remedy; and, when such multiple
fora are available, the forum which has been
approached is entitled in law to examine whether any
other forum is more convenient and/or better suited to
consider and decide the claim that has been raised by
the aggrieved litigant. For informed reasons, the forum
seized of the claim may refuse to entertain the claim
and leave the said litigant free to approach the other
forum. It is, however, noticed that the decision in Arif
Azim (supra) did not arise from writ proceedings."
7.6.13 From the above extracts, it is clear that where multiple
forums of concurrent jurisdiction exist and a party invokes the
doctrine of forum non conveniens , the Court has the jurisdiction
to examine the same and may decline to entertain the claim,
leaving the litigant at liberty to approach the more appropriate
- 35 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
forum. In the illustration referred to above and in the facts of
the present case, the appropriate forum would be the Tribunals
situated in the State of Maharashtra, rather than the Tribunals
situated in the State of Karnataka.
7.7 This Court must record its observations on instances
where the owners of the vehicles have admitted the
involvement of the vehicle in belated complaints, or, in cases
involving unnamed complaints and unidentified vehicles, and
charge sheets are filed in collusion and pleas of guilt are made
before the Court. When the accident has occurred in one State
and the claim petition is filed in another State, particularly in
circumstances where implication of the vehicle or false
complaints are alleged, the charge sheets filed against the
owner of the insured/offending vehicle, the silence of the owner
by not participating in the proceedings, or the plea of guilt
cannot, in law, be treated as evidence to prove the involvement
of the vehicle.
7.7.1 When charge sheets are filed based on certain witness
statements, to prove the contents of the charge sheet, the
witnesses may not be available for examination. This would
again result in prejudice either to the claimant or to the owner
- 36 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
of the insurance/offending vehicle or the insurance company
when such charge sheets are doubted by the Tribunal.
7.7.2 If a claim petition is filed before the jurisdictional
Tribunal where the situations contemplated under Section
166(2) of MV Act exist, the Tribunal would be in a better
position to appreciate the evidence and, if necessary, summon
the competent authorities, namely, the Investigating Officer or,
in appropriate cases, the charge-sheeted witnesses. Such an
opportunity or exercise cannot be effectively undertaken if the
claim petition is filed in another State.
8. Now, coming to the merits of the case, the Tribunal has
rejected the claim petition for want of jurisdiction. The accident
occurred in the year 2013, whereas the judgment rejecting the
claim petition was passed in the year 2022. The claimant
cannot be left without a remedy after such a length of time
merely on the basis of a technicality. The Division Bench of this
Court, in Banda Saraswati ( supra ), while considering an
identical issue, has held that the notional income or minimum
wages prevalent at the place where the claimant has suffered
loss of income has to be taken into consideration. This Court
finds no reason to take a different view.
- 37 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
8.1 In view of the observations made above, while remanding
the matter, the Tribunal is directed to adjudicate the claim
petition and determine the compensation based on the income
of the claimant or by taking into consideration the notional
income/minimum wages prevalent in the State of Maharashtra
at the time of the accident as the case may be.
CONCLUSION:
9. The claim petitions filed after the date of this judgment
can be entertained by the Tribunals in the State of Karnataka
are as under:
(1) If the accident has occurred within the area where
the claimant resides or carries on business, or
within the local limits where the defendant/owner of
the offending vehicle resides, before any Tribunal
within the State of Karnataka.
(2) If, in cases where claim petitions have already been
filed and are at the stage of evidence, the Tribunal
shall frame an additional issue regarding the
existence of any of the situations contemplated
- 38 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
under Section 166(2) of the MV Act within the State
of Karnataka.
(3) If, in cases where substantial progress has been
made in the claim petitions before the Tribunal, the
Tribunal shall examine the place of earning and
apply the notional income or minimum wages
applicable to that place. However, when proof of
income is produced and established, such an
exercise is not required to be undertaken by the
Tribunal.
(4) The application of the notional income or minimum
wages of the State based on the place of earning at
the time of the accident shall apply to all pending
matters before the Tribunal and before this Court,
in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in
Banda Saraswati ( supra ).
(5) When the place of the accident and the residence of
the owner of the vehicle are in another State, and
the claim petition is filed by furnishing an address
within the State of Karnataka, the Tribunal shall
mandatorily frame an issue regarding the
- 39 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the place of earning
of the claimant/victim.
(6) To invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in cases
where the accident has taken place outside the
State and the registered owner of the vehicle
involved in the accident resides outside the State,
and a residential address within the State of
Karnataka is furnished, largely based on purported
rental agreements, the Tribunal shall not rely solely
on such rental agreements as evidence of
residence, unless the same is corroborated by any
other document issued by the competent
authorities, namely, Aadhar Card, income-tax
returns, ration card, election voter ID, or similar
documents prior to the date of the accident.
10. In the light of the above, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part .
(ii) The judgment and award dated 14.01.2022
passed in M.V.C. No.794/2015 on the file of
- 40 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
the IV Additional District and Sessions
Judge and Member, MACT-XIII, Vijayapura,
is hereby set aside to the extent of non-
granting of compensation.
(iii) The matter is remanded back to the
Tribunal to the extent of determining
compensation.
(iv) The parties are at liberty to lead additional
evidence.
(v) The parties are directed to appear before
the Tribunal on 03.12.2026.
(vi) Since the accident is of the year 2013, the
Tribunal is requested to expedite the
proceedings and shall complete the exercise
not later than six months from the date of
appearance of parties.
(vii) No order as to costs.
(viii) The Registry is directed to communicate a
copy of this order to all the Motor Vehicles
- 41 -
MFA No. 200074 of 2023
Accident Claims Tribunals in the State of
Karnataka.
This Court place on record its appreciation for the able
assistance rendered by Sri Amaregouda Kellur and
Sri Harshith A., Research Assistants.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
DDU