Jurisdiction under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act is not solely based on the presence of a branch office of the insurance company in a particular location; the cause of action and the connection to the branch office are crucial in determining jurisdiction.

Rajendra Menon, J.

Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to an interlocutory order dated 16.11.2012 passed by the MACT Katni rejecting an application filed by the petitioner.

Petitioner is owner of the vehicle in question bearing No. M.P. 20D-0102 (Maruti 800 Car). The vehicle met with an accident within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Naurozabad, District Umariya on 16.9.2011 in the evening around 5.30 to 6.00 p.m., as a result of accident respondent No. 1 sustained certain injuries. The vehicle was registered with the United India Insurance Company Limited vide Policy No. 191402/31/11/02/00000004, Annexure P-2. The vehicle was insured in the office of United India Insurance Company Limited, Gurunanak Chowk, Burhar Road, Shahdol, as is evident from Annexure P-2. However, claiming compensation due to injuries sustained in the accident respondent No. 1 filed claim case No. 139/2012 before the MACT Katni and in such proceedings petitioner took an objection with regard to jurisdiction of the Tribunal in Katni, to deal with the matter. It was the case of petitioner before the Tribunal that the injured-claimant, owner and driver of vehicle are resident of district Umariya, they carry out their business in the district of Umaria and vehicle is insured by a Branch Office of Insurance Company at Shahdol. It was pointed out that the Insurance Company which insured the vehicle may have an office in Katni, but merely because it has an office/branch in Katni that does not provide jurisdiction to deal the matter in Katni.

Inter alia contending that Tribunal at Katni has no jurisdiction, an application was filed. The said application has been rejected by the learned Court on the ground that as a branch office of Insurance Company is available at Katni and it carries out its business from this branch office the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

2. I am of the considered view that the Court below has committed grave error. Merely because the Insurance Company has branch office in Katni that would not amount that any Court where a branch office of Insurance Company is situated would have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Under Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the jurisdiction is conferred based on option of the claimant subject to condition that claimant should be either residing within the jurisdiction of Claims Tribunal where proceedings are initiated or the defendant should be residing or carries on business. Merely because United India Insurance Company has its branch office in Katni also it cannot provide jurisdiction under provision of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. Similar question was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2010) 1 SCC 135, and after taking note of the question of jurisdiction for complaint to be filed under the Consumer Protection Act in a place where branch office of Insurance Company is situated, the learned Supreme Court held that merely because branch office of the Insurance Company is situated in various places all over the country, the cause of action would not arise in every place where the branch office of Insurance Company is situated. It has been indicated that for finding out cause of action in the matter and question with regard to availability of jurisdiction territorial in nature an ancillary question with regard to the place of business of the Insurance Company and the condition for insuring the vehicle is liable to be considered. Merely because branch office is situated in a place, the cause of action would not arise.

4. In the parent case also vehicle is insured with a branch office of the Insurance Company at Shahdol and nothing has been done in the branch office at Katni. That being so, learned Court below has committed error in rejecting the application on the ground that one of the branch office of the Insurance Company is situated in Katni. Sect