Karnataka HC Reopens 2013 Maharashtra Crash Claim For Compensation, Says Insurer’s Local Office Alone Won’t Confer Jurisdiction When Accident, Claimant And Owner Are Elsewhere

The claimant sought compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for injuries sustained in a 17 June 2013 accident in Maharashtra involving an Indica car and a lorry.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition for want of territorial jurisdiction, finding that the relevant connections were outside Karnataka. The claimant appealed.

Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act permits a claimant to file before a Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the place of the accident, the claimant’s residence or place of business, or the defendant’s residence.

The Court held that an insurer’s place of business may support jurisdiction in the circumstances addressed in Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., but it does not, by itself, confer jurisdiction in another State where the statutory connecting factors lie wholly in one State.

For pending matters, the Court applied the approach in The Manager v. Banda Saraswathi: compensation should be assessed using the notional income or minimum wages applicable where the claimant earned, unless actual income is proved.

The accident occurred in Maharashtra; the claimant and vehicle owners were residents of Maharashtra; and the insurers had places of business there. The Court found no relevant Section 166(2) connecting factor in Karnataka and held that an insurer’s business presence there did not independently confer jurisdiction.

However, because the claim arose from a 2013 accident and the Tribunal had dismissed it in 2022, the Court considered that rejecting the matter outright could cause a failure of justice. It therefore directed remand and required assessment using Maharashtra’s applicable notional income or minimum wages, unless the claimant’s income was proved.

It nevertheless allowed the appeal in part, set aside the Tribunal’s judgment to the extent it denied compensation, and remanded the matter for determination of compensation, permitting additional evidence. The Tribunal was directed to apply the claimant’s proved income or, if unproved, the relevant Maharashtra notional income or minimum wages. The parties were directed to appear on 3 December 2026, and the Tribunal was requested to conclude the proceedings within six months.