Territorial jurisdiction in motor accident claims turns on the insurer's local business and requires proof of failure of justice to upset an award.

Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a remedial provision and permits an accident claim to be filed where the claimant resides, carries on business, or where the defendant resides; for a juristic defendant, carrying on business within the local limits is a relevant basis for territorial jurisdiction, so filing against the insurer at Kolkata was valid. An objection to territorial jurisdiction is technical and, applying the principle underlying Section 21 CPC and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, cannot justify reversal unless it has caused prejudice or failure of justice; in the absence of such prejudice, the award should not be disturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Claims Tribunal at Kolkata had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition where the accident and the claimant's residence were outside Kolkata, but the insurer carried on business there. (ii) Whether the High Court could set aside the award for lack of territorial jurisdiction in the absence of failure of justice.

Issue (i): Whether the Claims Tribunal at Kolkata had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition where the accident and the claimant's residence were outside Kolkata, but the insurer carried on business there.

Analysis: Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 permits a claim to be filed where the claimant resides or carries on business or where the defendant resides. The provision is remedial and must be construed to facilitate compensation for victims of accidents. The Court held that, in the case of a juristic person, carrying on business within the local limits is a relevant jurisdictional factor, and filing the claim where the insurer had its business caused no prejudice.

Conclusion: The Kolkata Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could set aside the award for lack of territorial jurisdiction in the absence of failure of justice.

Analysis: Applying the principle underlying Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, 1887, an objection as to territorial jurisdiction cannot warrant reversal unless it has resulted in prejudice or failure of justice. The Court distinguished cases involving inherent lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and held that territorial jurisdiction objections are technical in nature when no failure of justice is shown.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in setting aside the award on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The award of the Claims Tribunal was restored and the insurer's jurisdictional objection failed because no failure of justice was shown.

Ratio Decidendi: An objection to territorial jurisdiction under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot invalidate an award in appeal unless it has caused failure of justice, and a claim may be filed where the insurer carries on business within jurisdiction.

---