NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. VAPPU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam in O.P.(MV)No. 619 of 2003. Claimants are the parents, brothers and sister of the deceased, who died in a road accident. The petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act impleading the owner, driver and the insurance company of the bike on which he was travelling as a pillion rider and also the owner, driver and insurance company of the bus as respondents 4 to 6. The Tribunal found that the legal representatives are entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2,08,167/- and thereafter granted an award. It is against that decision the insurance company has come up in appeal.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the insurance company would contend that though in a petition under Section 163A the question of negligence need not be considered, according to him, in order to resolve the dispute inter se between the respondents a finding has to be arrived at and the compensation has to be fixed and apportioned in accordance with the rules. According to him, the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the rider of the hike in which the son of the claimants was travelling as a pillion rider. Under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act it is not necessary at all to consider the question of negligence. Under Section 163A (2) in any claim for compensation under Sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. So, Section 163A(2) envisages a situation where more than one vehicle is involved in the accident and it is stipulated even in such cases, the question of negligence need not be considered by the Tribunal. When it is so, it will be against the spirit of Section 163A, a finding is entered into on the question of negligence so as to resolve any dispute that may arise inter se between the respondents. We are of the view that Section 163A totally prohibits a question of finding on negligence so far as a claim preferred by the injured or the legal representatives of a deceased is concerned. A Full Bench of this Court in the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Malathi C. Salian held that the insurance company cannot defeat a claim under Section 163A on the ground that the death or disablement had occurred due to the wrongful act neglect or default on the part of the deceased or the disabled person. Actually this decision takes into consideration a situation even when the accident took place on account of the negligence of the claimant or of the deceased and therefore in a situation of this nature which is under challenge there cannot be any negligence attributed on the deceased for the reason that he was only travelling as a pillion rider in a motor bike. Therefore we find that the Tribunal was only just in finding that the entire amount of compensation has to be paid by the 6th respondent in OP(MV)619/2003 which is the insurer of the bus.

(3.) The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tula Ram and Ors. held that claimants are not required to prove rash and negligent driving; requirement of law would be that there should be admission of accident arising out use of motor vehicle which should result in death or permanent disablement. The court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hansrajbhai V. Kodala . The basic object incorporating Section 163A is to enable the claimants and they would not be required to furnish proof with regard to committing any fault. It is also clear that on the basis of the structured formula envisaged under Section 163A read with Section Schedule, the claimants would be able to avoid long drawn litigation and consequent delay in the payment of compensation. Therefore no specific issue is required to be framed because the scheme of Section 163A is a alternative to determination of compensation on no fault basis. Therefore if an issue is raised in order to determine the inter se dispute then also it will be time consuming and it will be defeating the object of the enactment.