Territorial jurisdiction in motor accident claims turns on claimant forum choice and no reversal without prejudice or failure of justice.

Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 gives a claimant a wide choice of forum in motor accident claims: the Tribunal may be approached where the accident occurred, where the claimant resides or carries on business, or where the defendant resides. The provision is to be applied as part of a special statute and not read narrowly like ordinary civil-court jurisdiction. The text also applies the section 21 CPC principle that an objection to territorial jurisdiction should not succeed on appeal unless prejudice or failure of justice is shown. Where the claim has been tried on merits and no such prejudice is established, territorial-jurisdiction objections do not justify reversal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nainital had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition under section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and whether the High Court could set aside the award for want of territorial jurisdiction in the absence of demonstrated prejudice.

Analysis: Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 confers a wide choice on the claimant to approach the Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the accident occurred, the claimant resides or carries on business, or the defendant resides. The Act is a special statute, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction is not to be read narrowly like that of an ordinary civil court. The claimant had been working and residing at Nainital during the relevant period, and that factual finding supported jurisdiction. The judgment further applied the principle underlying section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 that an objection to territorial jurisdiction should not succeed in appeal unless it has caused prejudice or failure of justice. No such prejudice was shown, and the claim had been tried on merits. The Tribunal was therefore competent to decide the claim, and the High Court ought not to have interfered on the territorial-jurisdiction objection alone.

Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was unsustainable, and the award of the Tribunal could not be overturned on that ground.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside and the Tribunal's award was restored, with the claimant obtaining the relief awarded by the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, territorial jurisdiction in motor accident claims is determined by the claimant's statutorily available forum choices, and an appellate challenge to territorial jurisdiction will not justify reversal unless it has caused prejudice or failure of justice.

---