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

The appellants, parents of deceased Somashekhar Gayagawali, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of ₹16,00,000 for his death following a collision between his motorcycle and a lorry bearing registration No. TN-52/A-4216 on 24 April 2012.

The Insurance Company disputed the accident, alleged breach of policy conditions on the ground that the lorry driver lacked a valid driving licence, and contested the quantum of compensation.

The Tribunal framed issues concerning negligence, territorial jurisdiction, driving licence, and entitlement to compensation.

Although the claimants asserted that they were permanent residents of Bijapur/Vijayapura, the Tribunal treated territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and dismissed the petition without adjudicating the merits, holding that the accident occurred in Maharashtra and the insurer was situated in Chennai.

In appeal, the claimants relied upon a voter identity card in the original record showing claimant No. 2’s residence at Adarsh Nagar, Bijapur, and contended that the Insurance Company had neither led evidence nor demonstrated prejudice.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition for want of territorial jurisdiction without adjudicating the substantive issues on negligence, liability, and compensation?

Whether the claim petition could be entertained at Vijayapura on the basis of the claimants’ residence and the absence of demonstrated prejudice to the Insurance Company?

The Court applied Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, governing claims for compensation arising from motor-vehicle accidents, and Section 173 concerning appeals against awards of the Claims Tribunal.

It held that territorial jurisdiction is distinct from subject-matter jurisdiction: while a decision rendered without subject-matter jurisdiction may be a nullity, an objection relating to territorial jurisdiction is generally technical and cannot prevail in the absence of prejudice or failure of justice.

Relying on Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 244, and the Coordinate Bench decision in D.C.M.S.R.T.C. v. Shankar @ Shankarao, the Court emphasized that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, that claims should not be rejected on a hyper-technical jurisdictional objection, and that a claim may be entertained where the insurer carries on business if no prejudice is caused.

The Court also invoked the principle underlying Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that objections to territorial jurisdiction should not be entertained in appeal or revision unless they have occasioned a consequent failure of justice.

The Tribunal’s refusal to entertain the claim was held unsustainable because the record contained a voter identity card issued to claimant No. 2 showing her residence at Adarsh Nagar, Bijapur, even though the document had not been formally exhibited; strict rules of evidence were not applicable to the summary proceedings before the Claims Tribunal.

Further, the Insurance Company had not cross-examined the claimant regarding her permanent residence, produced evidence disputing jurisdiction, or established any prejudice resulting from adjudication at Vijayapura.

The offending vehicle was admittedly insured during the relevant period, and the claim had already remained pending before the Tribunal and the High Court for several years.

Requiring the aged parents to initiate fresh proceedings before another Tribunal after more than a decade would defeat the benevolent purpose of the legislation and risk a failure of justice.

Accordingly, the Court directed adjudication on the merits rather than dismissal on a technical objection.

The appeal was allowed; the judgment and order dated 27 October 2021 in MVC No. 1268/2014 were set aside; the claim petition was restored to the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Member, MACT-XIII, Vijayapura; and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration on merits in accordance with law, with a direction to dispose of it within six months from receipt of the certified order.