- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24217 WP No. 10312 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 10312 OF 2026 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: SOMMAIAH M.D, S/O LATE DEVAIAH M.S. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT: WEST NEMMALE, NEMMALE EAST AND WEST, KODAGU - 571 249. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LENITA MATHIAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M.A. SHAHIR S/O LATE ABDUL GHANNI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO. 263, HARISHACHANDARAPURA, ARUVATHOKLU, GONIKOPPAL, VIRAJPETE, KODAGU - 571 213. 2. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL AND BRANCH OFFICE, OPP. LAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION, JLB ROAD, MYSORE - 570 004. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24217 WP No. 10312 of 2026 CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED BY R1 HEREIN UNDER SECTION 166 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1989 IN MVC NO. 1729/2023 IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE PRL. SMALL CAUSES AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, AT MYSURU, IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN AT ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed by the owner of the vehicle seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the claim petition filed before the file of the Principal Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Mysuru, is not maintainable on the ground that the accident occurred at Gonikoppa and the parties to the claim petition are also based at Gonikoppa. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24217 WP No. 10312 of 2026 2. The claim petition has been instituted by the first respondent–claimant seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on account of grievous injuries allegedly sustained in a road traffic accident dated 02.06.2023. Upon service of notice, the insurer entered appearance and filed its statement of objections. The proceedings have since progressed to trial, and the claimant has stepped into the witness box and tendered his chief-examination as PW1. At this advanced stage, when the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW1, the present petitioner–owner of the offending vehicle filed an interlocutory application seeking dismissal of the claim petition on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal, upon consideration, has rejected the said application. It is this order which is called in question in the present writ petition. 3. The records disclose that the petitioner, as owner of the offending vehicle, is contesting the claim - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24217 WP No. 10312 of 2026 petition. The Tribunal, on an appraisal of the material on record, has recorded a categorical finding that the offending vehicle was admittedly insured with the second respondent–Insurance company, which carries on business and has an office within the territorial limits of Mysuru. Taking note of the said fact, the Tribunal has held that the claim petition is maintainable before the Mysuru Tribunal and consequently rejected the application filed by the petitioner–owner seeking dismissal of the proceedings on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. 4. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balveer Batra vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd.1 wherein the scope and ambit of Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been succinctly interpreted. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while construing the expression “at the option of the claimant”, has unequivocally held that 1 2024 INSC 361 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24217 WP No. 10312 of 2026 the statute confers a choice upon the claimant to institute proceedings before any one of the forums having jurisdiction, including the place where the claimant resides or where the defendant carries on business. It is further held that where multiple fora are competent, the claimant’s election of one such forum cannot be lightly interfered with. 5. In the light of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the contention urged by the petitioner that the claim petition ought to have been filed only at the place where the accident occurred, namely Gonikoppa, cannot be countenanced. The mere fact that the accident occurred within the limits of Kodagu District does not denude the Mysuru Tribunal of its jurisdiction, particularly when the insurer admittedly carries on business within its territorial limits. The legislative intent underlying Section 166(2) is to afford flexibility and convenience to the victim of a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24217 WP No. 10312 of 2026 motor accident, and any narrow or pedantic interpretation would defeat the very object of the beneficial legislation. 6. It is also of some significance that the insurer, who is the principal contesting respondent in a claim of this nature, has not raised any objection as to territorial jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the attempt of the petitioner–owner to non-suit the claimant on a technical plea, that too after commencement of trial and at the stage of cross-examination, clearly appears to be an endeavour to delay and protract the proceedings. Such dilatory tactics, particularly in matters arising out of personal injury claims, cannot be permitted to derail the expeditious adjudication contemplated under the Act. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and the settled position of law, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the Tribunal rejecting the application filed by the petitioner does not suffer from any - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:24217 WP No. 10312 of 2026 infirmity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, being devoid of merits, stands accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5