Territorial-jurisdiction objections cannot defeat motor accident claims absent demonstrated prejudice or failure of justice.

Rajendra Singh died from injuries sustained when car No. UP-35-L-7733 allegedly collided with his motorcycle on 7 September 2012 near Sarsaul, Kanpur Nagar.

His wife, children and mother filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sitapur, claiming ₹30,41,000 as compensation.

The Tribunal framed eight issues and conducted a full trial, but ultimately dismissed the petition solely for want of territorial jurisdiction, holding that the claimants had not proved permanent residence at Sitapur, the accident occurred in Kanpur, and the respondents resided in Unnao.

In appeal, the claimants relied on an additional school-leaving certificate showing the address of one claimant at Sitapur and contended that the National Insurance Company carried on business there.

They also argued that no respondent had demonstrated prejudice or failure of justice.

Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sitapur, was justified in dismissing the claim petition at the final stage solely on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, without adjudicating the claim on merits?

Whether the claimants established a jurisdictional basis under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, either by showing residence at Sitapur or by proving that the insurer carried on business there?

Whether the school-leaving certificate could be admitted as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC?

Whether the absence of territorial jurisdiction, assuming it existed, caused prejudice or failure of justice warranting dismissal of the claim petition after a full trial?

Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 gives the claimant an option to institute a 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 or carries on business.

In Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 244, and Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2016) 3 SCC 43, the Supreme Court held that territorial jurisdiction under Section 166(2) must be interpreted liberally and consistently with the beneficial object of the legislation; a claim should not be defeated on a hyper-technical objection absent prejudice or failure of justice.

Balveer Batra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4072, reaffirmed that territorial jurisdiction is distinct from subject-matter jurisdiction, and that proceedings should not be nullified unless the objection results in failure of justice.

Sections 21 CPC principles apply to objections concerning territorial jurisdiction, which must ordinarily be raised at the earliest opportunity and are capable of waiver.

Order XLI Rule 27 CPC permits additional evidence where the conditions in the Rule are satisfied, including where the evidence is necessary for a satisfactory adjudication or where substantial cause exists.

The High Court held that the Tribunal adopted an impermissibly technical approach.

The claimants’ additional school-leaving certificate materially supported their assertion that they were residing at Sitapur, and the Court accepted the explanation that the document had not been produced earlier because of the omission of their former counsel, applying the principle in Rafiq v. Munshilal, (1981) 2 SCC 788 that an innocent litigant should not suffer for counsel’s default.

Independently, the National Insurance Company’s written statement reflected that it was sworn at Sitapur, supporting the conclusion that the insurer carried on business and maintained an office there; this furnished an independent jurisdictional basis under Section 166(2).

Further, the Tribunal had framed all issues and permitted the parties to complete a full trial, yet dismissed the petition only at the final stage without examining prejudice.

Under Section 21 CPC principles and the Supreme Court precedents, territorial jurisdiction did not affect the Tribunal’s competence over the subject matter, and no respondent established any prejudice or failure of justice.

The application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was allowed, and the school-leaving certificate was taken on record as additional evidence.

The matter was remanded to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sitapur, with directions to entertain MAC Case No. 19 of 2013 and decide it on merits in accordance with law, preferably within four months of receipt of the certified order.

No order as to costs was made, and the original record was directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal.