Does the word 'defendant' in Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 include an insurer?

Paragraph 9As regards use of the expression ‘within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides’ in Section 166(2) is concerned, it is clear that the same does not intend to refer to an insurer as a defendant. This is in view of the fact that impleadment of an insurer as a defendant in a claim petition is not mandatory but is optional at the choice of a claimant as laid down in Shila Datta and Others (supra). The contesting defendant in a claim application would principally be the owner and/or driver of the offending vehicle, amongst others. The claimant has an option to file a claim application even where ‘the defendant resides’. In view of use of this expression in Section 166(2) of the Act of 1988, it is indicative of the position that the word ‘defendant’ used therein does not include an insurer. This aspect is further clear in view of Section 168(1) of the Act of 1988, which requires the Tribunal to give notice of an application filed under Section 166 to the insurer. Where an insurer is not impleaded as a party, the Tribunal has to give notice of the application to an insurer. Irrespective of its impleadment, an insurer gets knowledge of proceedings filed under Section 166(1) from the Tribunal. This is perhaps one of the reasons for not using the expression ‘or carries on business’ in Section 166(2) of the Act of 1988, as an insurer is not always expected to be arrayed as a defendant. H. Section 166(2) and Section 21 of the Code: