BABU Vs. JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the dismissal of an application for compensation under S. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurer. The appellant was travelling in an autorickshaw belonging to him and driven by the driver engaged by him. That motor vehicle collided with another motor vehicle. The appellant filed an application for claim invoking the no fault liability provision in S. 163A of the Act. The Tribunal quantified the compensation but held that, going by the police papers, the accident was as a result of the negligence of the driver of the claimant's autorickshaw and thus refused compensation.

(2.) In support of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that in an application under S. 163A of the Act, the question as to whether the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent or not, cannot be put in issue since that is not the foundation for a claim under S. 163A of the Act. It is argued that there is no principle of law on which the compensation could have been refused. It is further argued that the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is inadequate inasmuch as the Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 2000/-.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the insurer argued that by virtue of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India and the Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance company Ltd. v. Sinitha, 2011 4 KerLT 821(SC)) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Joseph, 2012 2 KerLT 132 (F.B.)), no fault liability doctrine cannot be invoked to fasten compensation on the insurer in cases where the driver or owner of the vehicle would be liable, either primarily or vicariously. She further argued that the court below was justified in fixing the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 2,000/-.