Claim petition is void-ab-initio if filed without satisfying territorial jurisdiction requirements under Section 166(2) of Motor Vehicles Act.

On 04.04.2020 at about 4:00 p.m., the claimant was allegedly preparing cow dung cakes by the side of the Hingangaon–Kumbhoj road near the land of Mujawar, within the limits of Kumbhoj village (Hatkanangale Taluk, Kolhapur District, Maharashtra), when the rider of motorcycle No. MH-09/FK-5268 allegedly came rashly and at high speed, lost control, and dashed against her, causing grievous injuries; she was admitted as an inpatient at Hiremath Hospital, Jaysingpur from 04.04.2020 to 24.04.2020

The police complaint was lodged only on 28.04.2020 — a delay of 24 days

Before the Tribunal, the owner (respondent No.1) did not contest, while the insurer (respondent No.2) denied the claim and pleaded, inter alia, false implication of the vehicle and absence of territorial jurisdiction (para 5 of its written statement)

The Tribunal awarded ₹1,78,020/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization

The insurer appealed under Section 173(1) of the M.V. Act, contending the accident occurred and all parties resided outside Belagavi's jurisdiction, and that the vehicle was falsely implicated

1. Whether the Court at Belagavi has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition?

2. Whether the appellant-insurer establishes that the offending vehicle is falsely implicated in the case?

Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which permits a claim petition, at the claimant's option, only within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal (i) where the accident occurred, (ii) where the claimant resides or carries on business, or (iii) where the defendant resides

The Court distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Malathi Sardar v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (Civil Appeal No.10/2016, disposed 05.01.2016) — which permits filing where the insurance company carries on business (e.g., a branch office) — on the ground that no material showed the insurer had any branch office at Belagavi

a judgment and award passed by a forum lacking territorial jurisdiction is void-ab-initio and non-est in the eye of law

The Court tested each limb of Section 166(2) against the record. First, the accident admittedly occurred on Hingangaon–Kumbhoj road, Kumbhoj village, Kolhapur District (Maharashtra), not within Belagavi

Second, although the cause title described the claimant as residing "now at Shrinagar, Belagavi," she gave no particulars of that address; in cross-examination she admitted her residence was Kumbhoj, her Aadhaar card (Ex.R.1) bore the Kumbhoj address, and she could not state the address of the relative's house from which she claimed to have travelled to depose; nor was there any evidence she carried on business at Belagavi

Third, the owner resided in Hatkanangale Taluk, Kolhapur, and the insurer's office was at Bengaluru, with no material establishing a Belagavi branch, rendering Malathi Sardar inapplicable

The Court rejected the claimant's procedural objection that the jurisdiction plea was raised for the first time in appeal, noting it was pleaded in para 5 of the written statement and pursued in cross-examination, through which Ex.R.1 was marked

Since all three statutory options failed, the Belagavi Tribunal lacked territorial jurisdiction, and its award was void-ab-initio; consequently, the false-implication contention need not be examined

The appeal under Section 173(1) of the M.V. Act was allowed and the judgment and award dated 18.02.2022 in MVC No.1471/2020 (VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi) was set aside for want of territorial jurisdiction. Any amount in deposit was directed to be refunded to the appellant on proper identification