K. Rashik v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2026 INSC 996) — The Insurer's Office Does Not Anchor Jurisdiction for an Accident Claim
Date Published
A two-wheeler rider is involved in an accident in Tirupati. He lives in Chittoor. The truck driver who hit him also lives in Chittoor. The insurance company, however, has an office in Chennai. So the rider files his compensation claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Chennai. Logical enough — but legally wrong.
On 16 September 2026, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the rider's appeal and confirmed that the insurer's place of business is not a ground for filing a motor accident claim petition. The case is K. Rashik v. National Insurance Company Limited and Another, 2026 INSC 996. The bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar settled an important question on the territorial jurisdiction of Motor Accident Claims Tribunals under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Facts: Accident in Tirupati, Claim in Chennai
On 25 October 2022, K. Rashik was riding his two-wheeler with his brother as pillion rider when a mini truck struck them near Yerravaripalem, District Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh.
He filed a compensation claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT in Chennai. He impleaded National Insurance Company Limited as a respondent. The insurer raised an objection to territorial jurisdiction, pointing out that no part of the cause of action had arisen in Chennai.
The Chennai Tribunal initially rejected the insurer's objection on the ground that since the insurer carried on business in Chennai, the Tribunal had jurisdiction. The insurer challenged this before the Madras High Court under Article 227. The High Court held that the Chennai Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and directed transfer to Chittoor. Rashik came to the Supreme Court.
What Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act Actually Says
Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 specifies the Tribunals before which a claim can be filed. A claimant may approach a Tribunal:
● Having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred.
● Having jurisdiction over the area where the claimant resides.
● Having jurisdiction over the area where the claimant carries on business.
● Having jurisdiction over the area where the defendant resides.
The critical point the Supreme Court highlighted: Section 166(2) says 'where the defendant resides' — not 'where the defendant carries on business.' In this way, Section 166(2) is deliberately worded differently from Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which allows a court to entertain a suit where the defendant 'carries on business or personally works for gain.'
Read Blog: Hari Dutta Sharma v. State of U.P. (2026 INSC 998)
The Distinction From CPC Section 20
Section 20 of the CPC is the general provision for territorial jurisdiction in civil suits. It includes, as one of the grounds, the place where the defendant carries on business. This means a plaintiff in a civil suit can sue a defendant company wherever that company has an office.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, through Section 166(2), does not replicate this ground. The legislature deliberately omitted the 'carries on business' ground for defendants. The Supreme Court held that this was not a drafting oversight — it was a deliberate choice, and courts cannot fill the gap by importing Section 20's formula into Section 166(2).
The Insurer's Position: Not a 'Defendant' in the Usual Sense
The Court also addressed why the insurer's place of business cannot be used to anchor jurisdiction even when the insurer is impleaded as a party.
It relied on the earlier Supreme Court decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Datta and Others (2011), which drew a distinction between an insurer impleaded as a party to a claim application and an insurer merely served with notice under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The 'defendant' contemplated in Section 166(2) for determining residence-based jurisdiction refers primarily to the principal contesting defendants — the owner and driver of the vehicle — not to the insurer. The insurer is joined because it carries statutory liability, but that does not make its business address a jurisdictional anchor.
Watch Our YouTube Video:
COI One Shot | Complete Constitution of India
The Result: Claim Goes to Chittoor
The Court upheld the Madras High Court's order. The claim is to be tried by the MACT at Chittoor — which is where the claimant lives, where the driver lives, and which is the district adjacent to where the accident occurred in Tirupati.
The Court also mapped out when a jurisdiction objection must be raised. If raised before the Tribunal at an initial stage, as in this case, Section 166(2) guides the Tribunal's decision. If raised post-award at the appellate stage, the appellant must demonstrate a failure of justice caused by the Tribunal having assumed jurisdiction without territorial authority.
Exam Relevance for Civil Judge Exam and PCS J Exam
The MACT, territorial jurisdiction, and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are standard topics in civil procedure and special acts papers. The key principles from this case:
● Section 166(2) MV Act — four grounds for filing a claim petition. The defendant's 'place of business' is not one of them.
● Section 20 CPC includes the defendant's place of business; Section 166(2) MV Act does not. Courts cannot import one into the other.
● The insurer's office at a place does not confer jurisdiction on the MACT at that place.
● The 'defendant' for Section 166(2) purposes refers principally to the vehicle owner and driver, not the insurer.
● Jurisdiction objection must be raised at the earliest opportunity before the Tribunal; at the appellate stage, it requires proof of failure of justice.
Crack your judiciary preparation with the Best Online Judiciary Coaching, featuring expert guidance, focused study plans, quality study material, and consistent practice for better exam readiness.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. What is this case about?
K. Rashik v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2026 INSC 996) holds that the place where an insurance company carries on business does not confer territorial jurisdiction on a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Q2. What are the four grounds for MACT territorial jurisdiction under Section 166(2)?
Area where the accident occurred; area where the claimant resides; area where the claimant carries on business; area where the defendant resides. The defendant's place of business is not included.
Q3. How is Section 166(2) MV Act different from Section 20 CPC?
Section 20 CPC includes as a ground the place where the defendant carries on business. Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act does not include this ground — it says 'where the defendant resides', which is narrower. The legislature's deliberate omission of the 'carries on business' ground for defendants cannot be remedied by importing Section 20 into Section 166(2).
Q4. Why cannot the insurer's office be used to anchor MACT jurisdiction?
The 'defendant' contemplated by Section 166(2) for the residence ground refers to the principal contesting defendants — the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The insurer is joined because of its statutory liability, but its address does not create a separate jurisdictional ground. Additionally, as the Supreme Court held, even the general 'carries on business' ground does not apply to defendants under Section 166(2).
Q5. What was the claimant's argument before the Supreme Court?
The claimant argued that he resided and worked in Chennai, the MV Act is beneficial legislation and should be interpreted broadly, and that the insurer's presence in Chennai meant no prejudice would result. The Court rejected all three — the MV Act's beneficial character does not allow courts to create jurisdictional grounds the legislature chose to exclude.
Q6. What did the judgment say about when to raise a jurisdiction objection?
A jurisdiction objection should be raised before the Tribunal at the initial stage of proceedings — as was done in this case. If raised at the appellate stage after an award, the appellant must demonstrate that the jurisdictional error caused a failure of justice, not merely that the Tribunal lacked territorial authority.
Q7. Is MACT the same as a civil court for procedural purposes?
Not entirely. The Motor Vehicles Act is special legislation, and the CPC applies to MACT proceedings only to the extent not inconsistent with the MV Act. This case illustrates one key difference: Section 20 CPC's 'carries on business' ground for defendants does not automatically apply to MACT proceedings under Section 166(2) because the MV Act has its own jurisdictional provision.
Q8. What is the case citation and bench?
K. Rashik v. National Insurance Company Limited and Another, 2026 INSC 996. Decided on 16 September 2026. Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.
Q9. Where should the claim have been filed?
At the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh — where the claimant resided, where the driver of the offending vehicle resided, and which was the district adjacent to the accident site in Tirupati.
Q10. Is Section 166(2) of the MV Act frequently examined?
Yes. MACT territorial jurisdiction, the distinction between CPC and MV Act jurisdictional grounds, and the treatment of the insurer in motor accident proceedings are standard topics in Civil Judge exam and PCS J exam papers. This judgment provides a clean, recent example for examination answers.
Conclusion
K. Rashik v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reinforces a principle of statutory interpretation that judiciary aspirants must internalise: when a special legislation deliberately omits a ground available in general law, courts cannot read it back in. The Motor Vehicles Act has its own jurisdictional framework, and that framework does not include the defendant's place of business. Filing a claim where the insurer has an office — without any other connecting factor — is forum shopping, and the Supreme Court will not permit it.
At Aashayein Judiciary, Nitesh Sir covers Motor Vehicles Act, CPC jurisdiction, and recent SC judgments as part of the Civil Judge exam and PCS J exam curriculum. Explore our Online Judiciary Coaching, Judiciary Notes, and Mock Tests to build comprehensive understanding.