The Uttarakhand High Court reaffirms that claim petitions under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be initiated where the insurance company’s branch operates, not only at the location of the accident or claimant’s residence. The judgment relies on Supreme Court precedent, clarifies jurisdictional flexibility in motor accident claims, and serves as binding authority for tribunals within its jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | AO/589/2023 of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs BABLU ALIAS CHANDVEER |
| CNR | UKHC010209732023 |
| Date of Registration | 29-12-2023 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Uttarakhand; persuasive in other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms; follows Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Claims / Procedural Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act permits filing claims where the insurer operates a branch office, regardless of the place of accident or residence. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic/Jurisprudence/Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The deceased, Ankit Kumar, was killed by an unknown vehicle while walking home. Initially unidentified, his body was later recognized by the claimants. FIR was lodged after identification. The insurer challenged the claim’s genuineness, the delay in FIR, and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction (since the accident occurred and the claimants resided elsewhere), but the Court upheld the Tribunal’s factual and jurisdictional findings. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and courts in other states |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that claimants can file motor accident claims at the location of any branch office of the insurance company, not just at the place of accident or claimant’s residence, under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Endorses a liberal approach in favour of accident victims when assessing evidence and procedural objections.
- Precedent of Malati Sardar is unequivocally applied, strengthening claimants’ jurisdictional options.
- The mere existence of the insurance company’s branch in the forum state suffices for forum selection.
- Delay in FIR or initial anonymity of the victim, if convincingly explained, is not fatal to claim petitions.
- The standard of proof in motor accident cases does not require elimination of all doubts where negligence and causation are reasonably established.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first addressed the jurisdictional objection. It closely examined Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which permits claims to be filed at the place where (i) the accident occurred, (ii) the claimant resides, or (iii) the defendant/insurer carries on business.
- Relying directly on the Supreme Court in Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., the Court emphasized that the provision is intended to benefit accident victims and must be interpreted broadly, not restrictively. Malati Sardar and Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. were cited and followed.
- The Court held that filing at Chamoli was proper as the insurance company had a branch office there.
- On the validity of the claim, the Court weighed the evidence regarding the deceased’s identification and the involvement of the vehicle, observing that the initial lack of identification and subsequent processes were satisfactorily explained and corroborated.
- The Court rebuffed the appellant’s objections about late FIR, omission of vehicle number in early records, and contentions regarding claim fabrication, finding no evidence of collusion or fabrication.
- Applying National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, the Court confirmed the Tribunal’s use of correct income assessment and future prospects in computing compensation.
- The Court restated that a liberal, victim-friendly approach is essential in motor accident claims.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant – National Insurance Company Ltd.):
- Asserted that the FIR and initial inquiry referenced an unknown vehicle; the insured motorcycle was implicated later, casting doubt on the genuineness of the claim.
- Objected to the claim’s maintainability at Chamoli (Uttarakhand) on jurisdictional grounds, since the accident and the parties resided elsewhere.
- Questioned the sufficiency of the panchnama, as it did not specifically record that a motor accident had occurred.
- Highlighted deficiencies in the eyewitness account, especially the absence of a vehicle number.
- Argued that the Tribunal’s income and damages assessment was excessive and legally untenable.
Respondent (Claimant):
- Emphasized that Section 166(2) enables filing in any area where the insurance company has business or a branch, as confirmed by Supreme Court judgments.
- Explained delays in FIR and identification as resulting from circumstances, namely initial anonymity of the deceased and the bereavement of the family.
- Relied on the Supreme Court’s guidance that procedural aspects should not defeat substantial justice for victims.
- Asserted that the Tribunal’s award and fact findings were proper and evidence-backed.
Factual Background
Ankit Kumar, a tractor driver, was killed by a hit-and-run vehicle while on foot on 13.07.2021. The accident happened near an Indian Oil Petrol Pump in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. Initially, the victim’s identity was unknown; only later did family members claim and identify the body. The FIR was filed against an unknown vehicle and driver on 22.07.2021. The claim was made in Chamoli, Uttarakhand, where the insurer’s branch is located. The insurance company challenged both the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the factual basis of the claim.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was thoroughly analyzed. The section provides for jurisdiction at the claimant’s option: the place of accident, claimant’s residence, or where the insurer “resides or carries on business.”
- The Court adopted a beneficiary-oriented, expansive interpretation, emphasizing that the existence of a branch office of the insurer is sufficient under Section 166(2).
- Precedential authority (Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.) was relied upon, noting Supreme Court criticism of technical or restrictive readings of jurisdictional options.
- The Court also referred to Section 173 (appeals) and general principles under the Act requiring a liberal approach in favour of victims.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies and affirms established Supreme Court authority (Malati Sardar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.) on jurisdiction in motor accident compensation claims.