Belated territorial-jurisdiction objections require return or transfer of MACT claims, not dismissal.

Basparam Brahma died in a motor-vehicle accident on 17 May 2021 while riding his motorcycle towards Baghmara Bazar.

His motorcycle was allegedly hit by a Maruti Alto bearing registration no. AS-14-L-7828, driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1.

The appellants, being his widow and daughters, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta, registered as MAC Case No. 377/2021.

The claimants examined four witnesses and produced documentary evidence, while the owner-driver and insurer adduced no evidence.

After completion of the enquiry, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition at the stage of judgment on the ground that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, although no specific jurisdictional objection had been raised by the respondents and no issue on territorial jurisdiction had been framed.

The claimants challenged that order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

Whether the Tribunal, having concluded after completion of the enquiry that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, could dismiss the claim petition instead of returning or transferring it to the competent Tribunal?

Whether the High Court should remit or transfer the claim case to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bajali to avoid prejudice to the claimants arising from limitation and procedural delay?

Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 permits a claimant to file a motor-accident claim before the Tribunal having jurisdiction over the place of accident, the place where the claimant resides or carries on business, or the place where the defendant resides.

Objections regarding territorial jurisdiction must ordinarily be raised at the earliest opportunity; the Supreme Court in Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2016) 3 SCC 43, relying also on Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cautioned against a hyper-technical approach that frustrates the remedial object of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Where a Tribunal finds that it lacks territorial jurisdiction after the proceedings have substantially progressed, the claim petition ought to be returned for presentation before the competent Tribunal rather than dismissed, particularly where dismissal may prejudice the claimant because of limitation under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The benevolent provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act must be interpreted in a manner that facilitates, rather than obstructs, remedies for victims of motor accidents.

The accident occurred in Bajali district, the claimants resided within Bajali, and the owner-driver also resided there; the insurer’s office was situated in Guwahati, Kamrup (Metropolitan), and there was no material showing that it maintained an office in Barpeta.

Accordingly, the High Court agreed that the Barpeta Tribunal lacked territorial jurisdiction under Section 166(2).

However, the jurisdictional objection had not been pleaded by the respondents, no issue had been framed, and the Tribunal had proceeded through evidence and final hearing before addressing jurisdiction for the first time in its judgment.

In those circumstances, dismissal would compel the claimants to institute fresh proceedings and expose them to prejudice arising from the limitation provision in Section 166(3).

Applying the principles against belated jurisdictional objections and the remedial purpose of the Act, the High Court held that the claim should have been returned or transferred to the competent Tribunal rather than dismissed.

It directed transfer of the claim case from the Barpeta Tribunal to the learned District Judge-cum-Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bajali, which had territorial jurisdiction.

The Bajali Tribunal was directed to proceed from the stage of arguments, hear both sides, and deliver a fresh judgment on merits as expeditiously as possible.

The Barpeta Tribunal was directed to transmit the records so that they reached the Bajali Tribunal by 20 August 2026.