(2018)2 SCeJ 1309

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

09, August  2018

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 163A  - Insurance company liable  for claim arising out of the death of driver of car which met with an accident under Section 163A - In a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act, the insurer cannot raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim to counter a claim for compensation – High court order holding that under Section 163A , since the victim has been contemplated to be an innocent third party, protection is extended only to the injured person or to the legal heirs of the deceased victim, and not to the driver who is responsible for causing the said accident being the tortfeasor and responsible for causing the accident, compensation could not have been awarded – Set aside – Insurer liable. 

DOWNLOAD

 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 163-A – Appeal by driver  - Owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle - Claimant is not obligated to prove the factum of rashness or negligence on the part of driver of the vehicle involved in the occurrence, driver of the vehicle is neither required to be impleaded as a party nor can be fastened with liability to pay compensation - In this view of the matter, I find merit in contention of the appellant that the Tribunal has seriously erred by holding the appellant jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.          (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 163-A, 166 – Tribunal stating that since the claim petition had been moved under Section 163-A as well as under Section 166 of the Act and no option had been made that under which Section the claim petition is to be pursued, hence, petition dismissed as not maintainable – Tribunal before deciding the other issues should have decided the maintainability issue - Had the maintainability issue decided first, the claimant would have got an opportunity to choose as to under which section the claim is to be pursued - In case of claim under Section 163-A of the Act, rash and negligent driving was not to be proved – Matter remanded to the Tribunal. (2018-1) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 

  Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 163-A – Claimants never stepped into the witness box to support their claim - No evidence was produced to establish that they were legal heirs of the deceased - Appellants have failed to prove that they were legal heirs of the deceased, in such circumstances claim petition was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal on this ground alone. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER

•   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 163-A – Compulsory Personal Accident Cover for Owner-Driver – Term 'owner-driver' has been defined, hence, no word can be added or deleted from the definition to extend the benefit to claimant so that the term 'owner-driver' can be stretched to mean owner or driver - The award passed by the Tribunal is being set aside, whereby the claimants were found entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- - It would be appropriate to invoke Section 140 of the Act - Under the said provision, the claimants would be entitled to Rs.50,000/- for `no fault liability' as provided.  (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
•   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 163-A – That income may be restricted to Rs.40,000/- per annum – Claimant have failed to prove that they were legal heirs of the deceased, in such circumstances claim petition was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal on this ground alone - Even otherwise claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act cannot be filed where the income of the deceased was more than Rs.40,000/- per annum. (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
•   Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 163-A and 140 – If the person driving the vehicle which met with an accident is owner himself or he is driving the vehicle with the permission of the owner, the driver steps into the shoes of the owner - The claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act would not be maintainable.  (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 
•