Can an insurer impleaded as a party-respondent, not merely a noticee, raise all grounds without being restricted to Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.166(2) — Territorial jurisdiction — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.20 — s.21(1) — Insurer as party-respondent — Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.166(2) — Distinct from CPC s.20 — Held: Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not confer jurisdiction where the defendant merely carries on business, unlike Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A claimant may sue where he resides, carries on business, where the accident occurred, or where the defendant resides. (¶8) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.166(2) — 'Defendant' excludes insurer — Held further: The word ‘defendant’ in Section 166(2) does not include an insurer, whose impleadment is optional at the claimant's choice. The contesting defendant is principally the owner or driver of the offending vehicle. (¶9) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s.149(2) — Insurer as party-respondent — Held further: An insurer impleaded as a party-respondent, not merely a noticee under Section 149(2), can raise all grounds available to a contesting defendant, including territorial jurisdiction. (¶6) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s.21(1) — Stage of the objection — Held further: An objection to territorial jurisdiction at the original stage is governed by Section 166(2); at the appellate stage it additionally requires proof of failure of justice under Section 21(1) of the Code. Civil Appeal dismissed; claim restored to the Tribunal at Chittoor. (¶10, 14, 16)